It was reported that left hip revision surgery was performed due elevated metal ion levels, necrotic tissue, pseudotumor, and metallosis.During the revision the bhr head was removed.The bhr cup remained implanted, a competitor stem, femoral head and dual mobility liner were implanted.As of today, device return and additional information has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All the released devices involved met manufacturing specifications at the time of production.The available medical documents were reviewed.This 65 year old male underwent a revision ~ 4 years post implantation of a left bhr.The surgeon indicated that he was also a bhr recipient himself, and is therefore requesting all of his patients with a bhr implant to have metal testing for cobalt and chromium serum levels.The operative report indicated that patient's blood test for cobalt and chrome levels were very high, in addition to developing metallosis.A lab report dated ~2 months pre-revision indicates the plasma chromium level was 31.0 ug/l; no cobalt level was provided.A post-revision lab report (~7 months) indicates a cobalt level of 1.8 ug/l, and chromium level of 6.4 ug/l.It was noted intraoperatively that the patient has recurvatum of the left knee, and probable posterior cruciate insufficiency which was chronic.Neither supporting intra-op findings/images nor pathology results were provided to confirm the reported metallosis.The clinical symptoms of the reported elevated cobalt/chrome levels, necrotic tissue, osteolysis, stained fluid, pseudotumors, and hip pain may be consistent with an adverse reaction to metal debris, but this cannot be confirmed based on the information provided.The source of the elevated metal ions cannot be determined.The future impact to the patient beyond the revision cannot be concluded.No further clinical assessment is warranted at this time.It was also noted that use of a competitor's (stryker) stem, femoral head and dual mobility liner (stryker) these were implanted at the time of revision.This activity was performed contrary to the instructions for use of for bhr implants which states under its important medical information's, "do not mix components from other manufacturers." without return of the actual devices or further information we cannot further investigate or confirm the details supplied in this complaint, and our investigation remains inconclusive.If the products or additional information become available in the future, this case will be reopened.No preventative or corrective action has been initiated as a result of this investigation.
|