This file is a review of the following journal article: xu, y., et al (2019) comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes of three procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: arthroscopic bankart repair, capsular shift, and open latarjet.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, vol.14, pages 1-7.(china) the study emphasizes on the hypothesis that outcomes of all patients will be similar regardless of surgical technique.The patients evaluated on course of this study: 168 patients.The article describes the following procedure: arthroscopy repair.The devices involved were: lupine br anchor and g2 anchor.One patient in the arthroscopic bankart group and one in the capsular shift group had a postoperative recurrence.The former occurred after 2 years when playing basketball, and the latter was caused by a fall after 17 months.
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.The complaint device is not being returned, the availability of the device is unknown, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.This complaint file was opened to document complaints derived through a journal article review.The journal article review indicated depuy mitek product failure(s).Multiple attempts were done to obtain more information from the author, however, no response was received.It is unknown if complaints derived from this journal article were previously reported and documented in the depuy mitek complaint system at the time of occurrence as no product code/lot number information was provided to perform the search.With the information provided, and without the complaint device to evaluate, we cannot determine a root cause for the reported problem.Since no lot number was provided, a manufacturing record evaluation or sterile load review could not be conducted.If any additional information is obtained, this complaint will be re-opened to capture that information.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.
|