It was reported that right hip revision surgery was performed.During the revision, the head was removed.The cup remained implanted.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment, and additional information have been requested for this complaint but have not become available.A review of the complaint history for the bhr head and bhr cup was performed using batch numbers in search of similar recurring reports for the products during their lifetimes.No other similar complaints were identified for the bhr head.Similar complaints have been identified for the bhr cup.However, as bhr systems of this size are no longer sold, no action is to be taken.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.Review of the product ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.No additional risks were identified as result of the reported event and no further actions are required at this time.The available medical documents were reviewed.Patient had a right resurfacing six weeks post implantation the surgeon noted ¿x-rays (b)(6) 2008 were suspicious for femoral neck fracture¿ on (b)(6) 2008 she had a conversion to tha.The revision intraoperative report indicated motion was apparent at the head neck junction.Without the supporting lab/pathology results, imaging, and/or the analysis of the explanted components, the root cause of the reported fracture cannot be confirmed, and it cannot be concluded that the reported event was associated with a malperformance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.
|