Literature article entitled "a useful tip for removal of a well-fixed trabecular metal tibial cone" written by michael j.Blackmer, brett g.Brazier, and joseph e.Alhadeff.Published by techniques in orthopaedics published online/accepted by publisher 4 dec 2020 was reviewed.The article's purpose was to follow the case of a (b)(6) male who required a repeat 2-stage revision of an infected total knee implant that included a porous tantalum tibial cone (competitor).It is indicated the patient previously underwent a 2-stage revision involving unknown manufacturer products.After the first 2-stage revision the patient underwent a revision arthroplasty with a posterior stabilized, rotating platform implant with diaphyseal-engaging stem (pfc sigma rotating platform total condylar 3) and a trabecular metal tibial cone (competitor product).In the early postoperative period following implantation of depuy products, the patient complained of purulent drainage, pain, effusion, as well as an elevated c-reactive protein.The patient underwent a tibial insert exchange followed by a 6-week course of iv antibiotics through a picc line followed by a 3-month course of oral antibiotics.It is unclear if infection was cleared.Upon completion of the antibiotic course, he developed recurrent effusions, pain, and an elevation in inflammatory markers.At this time, the decision was made to attempt a second 2-stage exchange arthroplasty with revision of depuy products.There is no mention of a patella component or indication of cement manufacturer.Radiographic and intra-operative images can be found on pages 1, 2, and 3 of the literature article.Depuy products with known adverse event(s): 1) pfc tibial insert x 2 2) pfc tibial tray 3) pfc tibial stem 4) pfc tibial sleeve 5) pfc femoral component 6) pfc femoral stem 7) pfc femoral sleeve adverse events: 1) first revision with tibial insert exchange to address pain, effusion, drainage, and infection.2) second revision with revision of all products to address pain, effusion, and infection.
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary : no device associated with this report was received for examination.Reviewing the x-rays and medical photos on the article, no evidence have been found of an implant fracture, disassociation oy anything indicative of a device non-conformance.There is no evidence to confirm defective device to cause those symptoms in the patient.Depuy synthes considers the investigation closed at this time.Should additional information be received, the information will be reviewed, and the investigation may be re-opened as necessary.Device history lot : a manufacturing records evaluation (mre) was not performed as no lot number was provided for this device.
|