The devices, used in treatment, were not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical / medical investigation concluded that this patient had a second revision 8 days after the first revision.Per operative report, the surgeon stated that this revision was due to a ¿failed acetabulum revision surgery¿.Intraoperative findings were a copious amount of organized and unorganized hematoma was encountered in the subcutaneous space.The fascia had dehisced.It appeared that the ilium and acetabulum were reconstructed and supported with plates, cables and screws.According to the records, it is unclear as to why the acetabulum revision surgery failed.Although intraoperative findings of a copious amount of organized and unorganized hematoma and a dehisced fascia occurred after the first revision.Without the supporting lab/pathology results, imaging, and/or the analysis of the explanted components, the root cause of the reported ¿failed acetabulum revision surgery¿ cannot be concluded but some patients may be predisposed, it may be complication of joint surgeries and is related to the procedure and not the device.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.No further clinical assessment is warranted at this time.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Some potential probable causes of the reported event could include dehisced fascia or hematoma.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved or product information, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaints will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for these complaints; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.
|