The product has been absorbed, therefore no samples can be provided for testing or analysis.Risk management files for the product have been updated to include the originally unidentified risk regarding the occurrence of osteolysis in some patients implanted with the biodegradable cement restrictors.Additionally, a risk benefit analysis was completed in may 2014 that concluded the overall medical benefits of the synplug products may not outweigh individual residual.Risk of osteolysis, primarily due to the lack of osteolysis reports for other cement restrictor types and options available to surgeon.Based on all available data at that time, no causal relationship between the use of the products and the reported instances of osteolysis could be demonstrated.To date, there are no conclusive findings from similar complaint investigations, or from technical or clinical information in the literature that proves or disproves a causal relationship between synplug® & optiplug® biodegradable cement restrictors, or the materials they are manufactured with, and periprosthetic osteolysis (or fractures as a result).There is no data or findings that would suggest that only some subset of all the products manufactured might be affected.A risk/benefit analysis of two reported fractures, (b)(4) reported osteolysis without the need for medical intervention and 100,000+ patients benefiting from a successful surgery it can be concluded that the benefit outweighs the risk.The finding of osteolysis surrounding the distal cement restrictor is unexpected, and undesirable, however, periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty is a well-known problem that is typically a multifactorial process and may be identified through routine radiographic follow-up.
|
Right hip implantation was reported to have occurred using the absorbable synplug cement barrier in 2006.Osteolysis was noted initially in 2008.Routine radiographic assessment in 2020 notes presence of osteolysis but also notes no progression to fracture.These numbers are consistent with separate lot numbers; radiographic file names suggest different patients, however, description suggests the same patient with bilateral prostheses (index dates 2003, 2006).Two reports will be filed; mfg references (b)(4).
|