The reason for this revision surgery was the femoral stem subsided and the original sleeve and head was removed.The length of in vivo service was 1.5 years.The healthcare professional indicated there was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The device was disposed of at the hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records showed no non-conforming material reports associated with the main contributor component listed in the complaint.A review of the product complaint report history showed there have been 12 prior complaints reported against this part number; summary of investigations: 3 for dislocation, 2 for trauma, 1 for infection, 1 for instability and others not associated with product issues.This is the first complaint against this lot number.The surgeon reported no issues associated with the explanted product and provided no information that definitively described the root cause or reason of the subsidence.No other conditions relating to this event could be determined with confidence.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|