• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING Back to Search Results
Model Number 74121150
Device Problem Biocompatibility (2886)
Patient Problems Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Metal Related Pathology (4530)
Event Date 05/25/2021
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).
 
Event Description
Us legal: it was reported that, after a bhr resurfacing construct had been implanted on the patient¿s right hip on (b)(6) 2007, the patient experienced pain, metallosis and prosthesis failure.This adverse event was treated with a revision surgery on (b)(6) 2021.During this procedure, the bhr femoral head was excised and removed.Intraoperatively, the acetabular component was well fixed but poorly positioned in slight retroversion, and the surgeon elected to revise it as well.Cancellous allograft was utilized to fill in some of the acetabular defects from the metal-on-metal reaction.A full tha system from a competitor¿s brand was implanted in exchange.The patient tolerated well the procedure and was transferred to the pacu unit in stable condition.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
H3, h6: it was reported that right hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the acetabular cup and femoral head was performed using batch numbers to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects over the lifetime of the product and using part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects in a timeframe prior 12 months as of the complaint aware date.No other similar complaints were identified to involve this batch.Other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode, and this failure will continue to be monitored.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.Review of the product ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.The alleged failure modes and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and the anticipated risk level is still adequate.No further actions are required at this time.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, no prior applicable escalation actions were identified.The available medical documents were reviewed.It should be noted the acetabular component was implanted with 30 degrees abduction (which is known to reflect the inclination).The surgical technique ((b)(4)) indicates, ¿the acetabular component is then fully impacted with 15-20° of anteversion and 40-45° inclination angle.¿ it is unknown if the decreased abduction and/ or poorly positioned in slight retroversion angle of the acetabular component led to the reported pain, milky fluid, and scar tissue.It cannot be concluded the reported events/ clinical reactions were associated with an implant malperformance or implant failure.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the available information we can confirm this complaint, a probable root cause of the reported issues is the deviation from the surgical technique and not the device.Other specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement.Should the device be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM
Type of Device
PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING
Manufacturer (Section D)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD
aurora house, spa park
leamington spa warwickshire CV31 3HL
UK  CV31 3HL
Manufacturer (Section G)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD
aurora house, spa park
leamington spa warwickshire CV31 3HL
UK   CV31 3HL
Manufacturer Contact
holly topping
7000 west william cannon drive
austin, TX 78735
5123913905
MDR Report Key14487233
MDR Text Key292484353
Report Number3005975929-2022-00325
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code NXT
UDI-Device Identifier03596010502797
UDI-Public03596010502797
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P040033
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 07/28/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received05/24/2022
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Expiration Date07/21/2012
Device Model Number74121150
Device Catalogue Number74121150
Device Lot Number077260
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received07/25/2022
Date Device Manufactured07/23/2007
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention; Other; Hospitalization;
Patient Age62 YR
Patient SexMale
-
-