Us legal mdl.It was reported that, after right bhr surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2014 due to a degenerative joint disease, the patient experienced hip pain, elevated ion levels and mild pseudotumor.This adverse event was treated with a revision surgery on (b)(6) 2020.Patient outcome is unknown.
|
H3, h6: it was reported that right hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the acetabular cup and femoral head was performed using batch numbers to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects over the lifetime of the product and using part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects in a timeframe prior 12 months as of the complaint aware date.No other similar complaints were identified to involve this batch.Other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode, and this failure will continue to be monitored.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All 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.The alleged failure modes and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and the anticipated risk level is still adequate.No further actions are required at this time.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, no prior applicable escalation actions were identified.The available medical documents were reviewed.Per the surgical technique ((b)(4)), the acetabular component is to be impacted with 15-20° of anteversion and 40-45° inclination angle.However, the implantation operative report indicated the acetabular component was implanted at approximately 10° anteversion, with some lateral cup uncoverage.It is unknown if the decreased anteversion of the acetabular component led to the reported elevated ions and small pseudotumor noted intraoperatively.It is noted that it was reported that ¿no metallosis was grossly seen.¿ without the supporting lab/pathology results or relevant imaging, the root cause of the reported elevated metal ions, pain, and pseudotumor cannot be confirmed and it cannot be concluded that the reported clinical reactions were associated with a mal performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the available information we can confirm the reported complaint, however without further information our investigation remains inconclusive, and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement, loosening of components may increase production of wear particles and accelerate damage to the bone.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|