It was reported that right hip revision surgery was performed due to elevated cobalt and chromium levels and tissue inflammation.During revision, the bhr cup and the bhr head were removed.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 for the bhr cup were reviewed.Review of manufacturing records did not reveal any waivers, concessions, manufacturing or material abnormalities that could have contributed to this issue.Review of manufacturing records for bhr head was performed.Review of the records indicated the device was an acceptable product when released and met specifications applicable at the time of production.However, the full supporting documentation for the casting goods inwards inspection was not available.The missing documentation has been addressed through a non-conformance report and root cause analysis was performed on this documentation non-conformance.The available medical documents were reviewed.Various factors can increase the risk for dislocation, such as extreme movements, impingement between bony or implant structures, a suboptimal implant position or insufficient soft tissue tension.According to the provided implant report, it was reamed up to 56 mm and a 56 mm outer diameter cup was placed.According to the surgical technique (lit.No 10/10 rev a 4567-0103), it should be reamed to 1 to 3 mm smaller than the cup size.It cannot be excluded that this had an effect on the primary stability and consequently on the implant position.According to the provided revision report, the patient dislocated the hip the first time 6 months before the revision (1 year and 3 months after implantation), when leaning over an edge and lifting something.This was managed non-operatively.2 months before the revision, the hip dislocated again when rising from the toilet.During the revision a tannish membrane layer was noted that was consistent with persistent exposure of synovial fluid and maybe adverse reaction to metal.It was noted that the hip had dislocated posteriorly and the cup had maybe not enough anteversion.A relation of the reported possible adverse reaction to metal with the recurrent dislocations and reduction manoeuvre cannot be excluded as these might have caused damage to the articulating surfaces.Whether in fact the cup position contributed to the dislocation can also not be further investigated.Additionally, other factors can increase the risk for dislocation, such as extreme movements, impingement between bony or implant structures or insufficient soft tissue tension.Information to support the complaints report of elevated metal ion levels were not provided for inclusion in this investigation so it cannot be confirmed if it was present.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.
|