It was reported that, after a tka had been performed on (b)(6) 2021, with a uni journey system, the patient experienced pain.X-rays indicated that the journey uni tibinrt s5-6lm/rl8mm was not in its position.This adverse event was solved by a revision surgery on (b)(6) 2022, in which the journey uni tibinrt s5-6lm/rl8mm was removed.The patient's health status is stable.
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation but the clinical/medical investigation confirmed the failure mode through the x-ray analysis.It was concluded that based on the documentation provided, the root cause of the reported revision due to ¿damage¿ and pain was most likely the uni-knee insert dislocation allowing contact between the femoral condyle and the tibial baseplate; however, the root cause of the insert dislocation could not be definitively concluded.The amount of periprosthetic tissue debris during the approximate 4 months in-vivo raises suspicion of possible post-operative trauma or incomplete seating/locking of the tibial insert into the tibial baseplate during the initial uni-knee procedure.The assessed patient impact is the reported pain, insert dislocation, revision/conversion to tka and findings indicative of metallic tissue debris.Further patient impact could not be determined; however, it was reported that the patient health condition is stable.No further medical assessment can be rendered at this time.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history for the part number over the past 12 months and for the batch number based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that improper fixation, and/or migration of the components could cause possible adverse effects.Also, the warnings and precautions section establish that the implant can become damaged as a result of strenuous activity or trauma.The patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of possible adverse effects.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, surgical technique or size of device.The contribution of the device to the reported event could be corroborated as the device migration led to a revision surgery to treat this event.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|