It was reported that after a left tka performed on (b)(6) 2016 due to osteoarthritis, the patient presented progression of the disease and unexplained pain.A revision surgery to addressed this issue on (b)(6) 2018 and all implants were exchanged for competitor´s implants.This information was provided by the national joint registry of the united kingdom, as part of a retrospective data collection of patients who underwent a revision surgery of journey uni prothesis.As such, no further information will be available.
|
Section h10: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, a left revision was performed approximately 2 years post unicompartmental knee arthroplasty due to disease progression and unexplained pain.As of the date of this medical investigation, the requested clinical documentation has not been provided as the information was provided by the national joint registry of the united kingdom as part of a retrospective data collection, and reportedly, no further information will be available.Without the requested medical documentation, definitive clinical factors which could have contributed to the reported event could not be concluded, although the reported disease progression could not be ruled out as a potential contributing factor.The patient outcome beyond that which was reported could not be confirmed nor concluded; therefore, no further medical assessment can be rendered at this time.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that the patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of possible adverse effects, this has been identified as warnings and precautions.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, joint tightness, patient reaction or postoperative care.The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be corroborated.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.Internal complaint reference number: (b)(4).
|