*us legal mdl* it was reported that, after a primary bhr resurfacing construct had been implanted on the plaintiff¿s right hip on (b)(6) 2008, the plaintiff experienced metallosis, pseudotumor formation, adverse tissue reaction, loss of mobility, stiffness and severe pain.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2020 to treat this adverse event.The bhr resurfacing cup and bhr resurfacing head were explanted and exchanged with a tha prosthesis.The patient was awakened and transported to the recovery room in stable condition.
|
H3, h6: it was reported that a right hip revision surgery was performed.During the revision, the bhr resurfacing cup and bhr resurfacing head were removed.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 cup and head 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 femoral head.Similar complaints have been identified for the cup.However, as bhr systems of this size are no longer sold, no action is to be taken.On account of the fact devices reportedly involved in this incident were not returned for evaluation, the relevant production records were reviewed review of manufacturing records did not reveal any waivers, concessions, manufacturing or material abnormalities that could have contributed to this issue.All the released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution 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.The clinical information provided, of adverse local tissue reaction and pseudotumor may be consistent with a reaction to metal debris.However, the source and the root cause cannot be determined with the available documentation.It cannot be concluded that the reported clinical findings are associated with the implant failure.Without the return of the actual devices or further information we cannot further investigate or confirm the details supplied in this complaint.The investigation remains inconclusive and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Additionally, specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault cannot be provided due to the insufficient information.If the products or additional information become available in the future, this case will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|