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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: EXACTECH, INC. TRULIANT TIB IMP CR INSERT STD 1.5 10MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED,

  • 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
 

EXACTECH, INC. TRULIANT TIB IMP CR INSERT STD 1.5 10MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, Back to Search Results
Model Number TRULIANT TIB IMP CR INSERT STD 1.5 10MM
Device Problem Appropriate Term/Code Not Available (3191)
Patient Problems Fluid Discharge (2686); Implant Pain (4561); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms, Conditions Term / Code Not Available (4581)
Event Date 08/17/2022
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description
It was reported that a 63 yo female patient, initial left knee implanted on (b)(6) 2019, underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2022, approximately 2 years 10 months post the initial procedure to swap the recall implant.The patient was last known to be in stable condition following the event.The device is not returning as the hospital refused to return.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
No device return anticipated due to the hospital refused to return them.Concomitants medical devices: 02-020-13-0215 - truliant cr cem fem cr cem left sz 1.5 5523615, 02-022-45-1515 - truliant tib fit tray cem sz 1.5f / 1.5t 5854393, 200-02-29 - three peg patella 29mm 5893247.(b)(4).Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
H6: based on review of all available information, there is no evidence to suggest that the reported event is related to any design issues.The cause of the subsequent poly swap/revision has been reported to be due to the device recall; no other reason reported.
 
Event Description
The poly was swapped due to the recall.No other reason reported.There were no reported issues during the revision surgical procedure.No additional information.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
After review of additional information received the following sections, b5, g4, and h6-health effect - clinical code have been updated accordingly.
 
Event Description
B5: from the operative report: the patient is a 63 yo female with history of left total knee arthroplasty approximately 3-4 years ago, which has started to develop an effusion in the last year or so, with polyethylene recall, she did present to outpatient orthopedic clinic with complaints of left knee effusion, which was present on exam as well as creating some feelings of pain and tightness to the knee.This is something that has been progressive that initially was not present.Esr and crp was negative to rule out infection, and ct scan ensured no osteolysis or evidence of loosening of the metallic impants.Once this was established and associated with polyethelene recall and effusion, otherwise without an explanation, did elect for a polyethylene exchange.All the risks and benefits were dictated to her, and she is willing to accept these risks and benefits.The consents are signed on the chart with all her questions answered to her satisfaction.Procedure in detail: opeerative consents were reviewed, site was marked.The patien was escorted back to the operative suite.She underwent spinal sedation.The left lower extremity was prepped and draped in sterile fashion.A nonsterile tourniquet was placed prior to prepping and draping and it was elevated to 300 mmhg after the limb was levated 3-5 minutes.An anterior incision was created in medial parapatellar arthrotomy.She did have a large effusion, which was nonpurulent and no metallosis present.I then performed a synovectomy of the suprapetellar pouch and medial and lateral gutters of the knee.We were able to isolate the polyethylene, able to remove it from the tibial tray, and taken to the back table for preservation.At this point, there was no othe pathology noted in the knee.There was no evidence of any impingement or any kind of degadation of the metallic implants and they were deemed competent.The polyethylene on the patella looked to be pristine as well.At this point, we then performed a 3-5 minute betadine soak and pericapsular cocktail injection and we placed a new polyethylene of the same thickness and this was easily tamped down into position after we had solid fixation of the polyethylene.We then performed another 3-5 minute betadine soak, deflated our touniquet and then removed the packing.We copioulsy irrigated the wound again with antibiotic-impregnated saline, placed 1 gram of powder vacomycin intra-articularly, and reapproximated medial prapatellar arthrotomy with #1 vicryl and #1 stratafix suture.Subcutaneous tissue was reapproximated with 2-0 vicryl, 3-0 vicryl, steri-strips, 4x4's, and bulky jones dressing.She was awoken and transferred to the recovery room in stable condition.No complications occurred during the case.Postoperative course: she remained in the hospital for perioperative antibiotics, dvt prophylaxis, mobilization and pain control.They followed her hospital course and began mobilzation to tolerance.
 
Event Description
Legal case.The plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer permanent and debilitating injuries and damages, including but not limited to pain, swelling, effusion, knee popping, knee giving away, difficulty walking, antalgic gate, and other injuries presently undiagnosed, which all require ongoing medical care.No further information.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
B3: corrected event date from 8/1/2022 to 8/17/2022.D6b: corrected explant date from (b)(6) 2022 to (b)(6) 2022.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
H3: based on review of all available information, there is no evidence to suggest that the reported event is related to any design issue.The cause of the subsequent revision was most likely related to pain as reported.There were no noted problems with the implants found during the surgical revision procedure.These devices are used for treatment not diagnosis.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
TRULIANT TIB IMP CR INSERT STD 1.5 10MM
Type of Device
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED,
Manufacturer (Section D)
EXACTECH, INC.
2320 nw 66 court
gainesville FL 32653
Manufacturer (Section G)
EXACTECH, INC.
2320 nw 66 court
gainesville FL 32653
Manufacturer Contact
kate jacobson
3523771140
MDR Report Key15569707
MDR Text Key301512188
Report Number1038671-2022-01278
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code JWH
UDI-Device Identifier10885862306159
UDI-Public10885862306159
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
K171045
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Remedial Action Recall
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 03/22/2023
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received10/10/2022
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model NumberTRULIANT TIB IMP CR INSERT STD 1.5 10MM
Device Catalogue Number02-022-47-1510
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received02/25/2023
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured10/02/2017
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Treatment
SEE H10
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
Patient Age63 YR
Patient SexFemale
-
-