H3 ,h6: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, a clinical study patient required a left medial uni-revision/conversion to a tka approximately 22 months post implantation.The provided 1-year-visit documentation (datafax #157, plate#006) did not show any radiolucencies or new adverse events.The severe, non-serious ae(#1) which was possibly due to the study device and/or study procedure was detailed as progression oa lateral compartment of left knee with pain which required hospitalization (prolonged) and revision with admission (b)(6) 2021 to discharge on (b)(6) 2021.The provided brief op-note surgical diagnosis is ¿pmg removal and ptg implant to the left¿ with the known diagnosis as ¿pmg aseptic loosening on the left¿ and detailed ¿poor integration of the medial hemipiat¿.Reportedly, although the patient was ¿recovering/resolving¿, study participation was discontinued due to the event (as competitor components used in revision).It was communicated that 2-year x-rays were not taken.Reportedly, the root cause of the event was disease progression which is a known potential occurrence and does not support a component malperformance.Although the patient was reportedly ¿recovering¿, the patient impact beyond the reported pain, disease progression, and revision/conversion with the hospitalization course could not be determined.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 loosening, dislocation, subluxation, excessive rotation, flexion contracture, decreased range of motion, lengthening or shortening of the leg, looseness of components, unusual stress concentrations and extraneous bone has been identified as possible adverse effects.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.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.Factors and/or some potential probable causes that could contribute to the reported event have been identified as overuse or excessive pressure on the joint, injury, disease progression and/or patient condition.The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be corroborated.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.
|