It was reported that, following a revision surgery performed on the patient¿s right hip on (b)(6) 2017 due to elevated metal ion levels, pain and pseudotumor formation, the patient experienced multiple dislocations and required an additional revision surgery on (b)(6) 2017.During this procedure, the bhr acetabular cup was explanted with the rest of the bearing components (competitors) and replaced with a new shell, a constrained liner and a femoral head.Intraoperatively, severe plastic wear from the dislocated dual mobility liner was identified and a deep subfascial pseudotumor was excised.The patient¿s outcome is unknown.
|
Results of investigation: it was reported that a right hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, the implanted device, which was used in treatment has not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the acetabular cup 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.Other complaints were identified to involve this batch.Other similar complaints were identified for the part number and the reported/related failure mode.However, as the device is no longer sold, no action is to be taken.In the absence of the actual device, the production records were reviewed for the device 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 product and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions required.The available medical documents were reviewed.It should be noted during prior revision the smith and nephew acetabular cup was retained and stryker liner, head and stem were implanted.With the information provided the clinical root cause of the pseudotumor, dislocation and subsequent revision cannot be confirmed.However, the mix-manufacturer construct, pelvic tilt, and/or gluteus medius insufficiency cannot be ruled out as contributing factors to reported events/clinical reaction.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the information provided, we can confirm this complaint.The mix-manufacturer construct, pelvic tilt, and/or gluteus medius insufficiency is a possible root cause to the noted multiple dislocations.However, without further information our investigation remains inconclusive, and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on the investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.Corrected data: h3, h6 (health effect - clinical code, health effect - impact code, medical device problem code).
|