The following devices were also listed in this report: exeter v40 stem 33mm; cat # 0580-1-330; lot # unknown.22.2mm std lfit v40 head; cat # 6260-9-122; lot # unknown.It cannot be determined which, if any of these devices may have caused or contributed to the patient's experience.It was noted that the device is not available for evaluation.Should additional information become available, it will be provided in a supplemental report upon completion of the investigation.H3 other text : not available.
|
Reported event: an event regarding malposition/protrusio involving a uhr head was reported.The event was confirmed via clinician review of the provided medical records.Method & results: -product evaluation and results: material analysis, visual, functional and dimensional inspections could not be performed as the device was not returned.-clinician review: a review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: "the md communication states that the patient's problem started in 2016 with a hip fracture.This was treated with a hemiarthroplasty.In the letter, and borne out by x-ray review, this hemiarthroplasty was seen to mechanically fail with severe osteolysis and superior and medial cup migration and protrusio.Postoperative x-rays demonstrate a cup/cage acetabular reconstruction with bone grafting and lateral plating of the femur.Mechanical failure of a left hip hemiarthroplasty with subsequent revision is confirmed.The root cause of this failure cannot be determined from the information provided.[¿] i cannot state with certainty the reason for the plate as i do not have an operative report related to this surgery.That being said on multiple pre-operative x-rays severe osteolysis is seen in the trochanteric and subtrochanteric x-rays.Review of the post-operative x-rays do not reveal any evidence of fracture.Therefore i strongly believe the plating was prophylactic in nature." -product history review: could not be performed as the device lot details were not provided.-complaint history review: could not be performed as the device lot details were not provided.Conclusions: it was reported that the patient was revised due to pain and protrusio of the bipolar implant.A review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: "in the letter, and borne out by x-ray review, this hemiarthroplasty was seen to mechanically fail with severe osteolysis and superior and medial cup migration and protrusio.Postoperative x-rays demonstrate a cup/cage acetabular reconstruction with bone grafting and lateral plating of the femur.Mechanical failure of a left hip hemiarthroplasty with subsequent revision is confirmed.The root cause of this failure cannot be determined from the information provided." further information such as return of the device, pathology reports, additional serial pre- and post-operative x-rays and the revision operative report as well as patient history and follow-up notes are needed to complete the investigation for determining root cause.No further investigation for this event is possible at this time.If devices and/or additional information become available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.
|