SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS AG BIOLOX DELTA CE BALL HEAD 12/14 36L; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/CERAMIC/POLYMER, CEMENTED OR NON-POROUS
|
Back to Search Results |
|
Catalog Number 75007450 |
Device Problems
Device Damaged by Another Device (2915); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
Patient Problem
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
Event Date 08/18/2009 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that, after a thr surgery performed on (b)(6) 2009, a revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2009 due to irritation between the biolox delta ce ball head 12/14 36l and the ep-fit/mpf ceramic insert delta 52/32.Later on (b)(6) 2021, patient underwent another revision surgery due to a fracture of the nanos stem.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that, after a thr surgery performed on (b)(6) 2009, a revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2009 due to irritation between the biolox delta ce ball head 12/14 36l and the ep-fit/mpf ceramic insert delta 52/32.Later on (b)(6) 2021, patient underwent another revision surgery due to a fracture of the nanos stem.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(b)(4).H6: updated medical device problem code.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Results of investigation: it was reported that, after a thr surgery performed on 20-jan-2009, a revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2009 due to irritation between the biolox delta ce ball head 12/14 36l and the ep-fit/mpf ceramic insert delta 52/32.Since the revision took place in 2009, the devices, used in treatment were no returned for investigation.Therefore, the relationship between the reported event and the device cannot be confirmed.The production documentation of both devices was reviewed.There are no indications that the device failed to match specification at the time of manufacturing.The complaint history of the devices was reviewed.The risk profile of both devices is low and covered through the corresponding risk management files.The current ifu lists several potential adverse events and medical device problems which could have led or describe the discomfort / irritation at the insert/ball head interface.Review of past corrective actions was performed.No further escalation is required.Based on the provided information a medical assessment was conducted.The provided x-rays do not contribute to the root cause of the squeaking but it¿s a known symptom with a ceramic on ceramic articulation.With the information provided the clinical root cause of the ¿irritation and squeaking¿ cannot be confirmed, and it cannot be concluded that the reported events were associated with a mal performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the revision and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the available information the root cause stays undetermined after investigation.It cannot be speculated about contributing factors.To date, the need for further investigation is not indicated.Smith and nephew will monitor this device for further similar issues.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|