The reason for this revision surgery was stability.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this investigation occurred 7.4 months apart.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.This investigation is limited in scope as the item associated with this investigation was not returned to djo surgical - (b)(4) for examination.A review of the implant device history records (dhr), shows that the reported component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of use during the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported device showed no present trends or on-going issues that are in need of review.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to stability.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside of the control of djo surgical.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was defective.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|