Please note corrections to section d4 lot#; the lot 1010033 was communicated.However, this lot did not yield any results in our databases, and does not look like a typical lot for star prosthesis.Therefore, the lot in this case will be considered unknown.The reported event could not be confirmed since the device was not returned for evaluation and recent x-rays were not provided.Since x-rays were provided, the opinion of a medical expert was requested.Their opinion is as follows : "looking at the reports from the surgeon and the photo¿s i can give my opinion on the fracturing op the polyethylene core of the star ankle prosthesis.The patient visited his surgeon recently with pain in the ankle, eight years after the initial ankle replacement.The pain became worse over the last 6 months.Unfortunately there is no additional information from 2021 for this case.The reports and x-rays are from 2013-2014 only.Revision surgery after ankle replacement is not uncommon.Unfortunately it is more common than in hip and knee.Probably the wear and tear in the ankle is higher, also because of the complex movement in the ankle.The polyethylene core is exchanged after fracturing most often, but some surgeons replace it if revision is needed (also for other components) just to place a newer generation polyethylene core in the ankle.Poly breakage is a multi-factorial problem in general.It may have to do with the surgery but patient characteristics are also an important factor to weigh in, in this case the patients obesity may have contributed to additional wear of the poly.Looking at the literature, the mean time for polyethylene core fractures to occur is around 5-7 years, however the range is wide, from just over 1 year to 10 years.In this case it was 8 years, which is unfortunate for the patient.I do not see a clear clinical or surgical explanation for the occurrence of this polyethylene core fracture at this time from the attached information." therefore, more detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available in order to determine the root cause of the complaint event.A review of the device history was not possible because the (right) lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|