It was reported that on literature review "can hip resurfacing be safely revised with short-stem total hip arthroplasty? a case series of six patients," 1 patient operated in 2007 with bhr presented pain, the clinical examination showed a hip rotation stiffness and a hip extension deficit of 10.The imaging revealed a loose prosthesis with an acetabular bone defect and metallosis.
|
Smith & nephew is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 c.F.R.Part 803.This report may be based upon information which smith & nephew has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, smith & nephew, or its employees, that the report constitutes an admission that the device, smith & nephew or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.
|
H10: it was reported that on literature review "can hip resurfacing be safely revised with short-stem total hip arthroplasty? a case series of six patients", one patient operated in 2007 with bhr presented pain, the clinical examination showed a hip rotation stiffness and a hip extension deficit of 10.The imaging revealed a loose prosthesis with an acetabular bone defect and metallosis.A revision using competitor's device was performed to treat the adverse event.At last study follow up, the patient's outcome was excellent.The devices, used in treatment, were not available for analysis.As no device part and batch numbers were provided for investigation, a complaint history review, manufacturing record review, device labelling / ifu review could not be performed.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions are required.A risk management review was performed for the acetabular cup and femoral head.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.Without clinically relevant patient-specific supporting documentation, a thorough medical investigation could not be performed.The images provided in the article have been interpreted within the text; therefore, no further analysis of the images are required.The root cause and/or patient outcome beyond that which was documented in the article could not be confirmed nor concluded; therefore, no further medical assessment is warranted at this time.Should clinical documentation become available in the future, a thorough medical assessment may be rendered at that time.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.If the products or additional information become available in the future, this case will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.Internal complaint reference number: (b)(4).
|