Us legal.It was reported that, after a bhr resurfacing joint prosthesis had been implanted on the plaintiff¿s right hip on (b)(6) 2008, the plaintiff experienced pain, leg length discrepancy and impingement at the head neck junction.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2021 to treat this adverse event.During this procedure, the bhr femoral head was resected and replaced with a total hip replacement prosthesis, leaving the acetabular cup in place and implanting a dual mobility liner.Intraoperatively, avascular necrosis was noted around the femoral neck area.The patient was transferred to the recovery room in stable condition.
|
H3, h6.It was reported that a right hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, device return has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.As no device batch numbers were provided for investigation for the femoral head, a manufacturing record review, device labelling / ifu review could not be performed.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.Without a definitive batch number, a complete review of the historical complaints data cannot be performed for the femoral head.A review of historical complaints data was performed 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.Other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode, and this failure will continue to be monitored.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.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.The reported pain, leg length discrepancy, and subsequent revision are related to the impingement and avascular necrosis.It cannot be concluded that the reported events/clinical reactions were associated with a mal performance of the implant or implant failure.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the information provided, we can confirm this complaint; a probable root cause of the reported issues is the impingement on the acetabular component and avascular necrosis of the femoral neck and not the device.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on the investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|