It was reported that after a right thr surgery performed on (b)(6) 2009, the patient presented periprosthetic fracture.The adverse event was addressed via revision surgery on (b)(6) 2011, where the cpcs cocr prim so 12/14 sz 3, metal ball head 28l cone 12/14 and the polarcup liner 55/28 were explanted.This information was provided by the national joint registry of the united kingdom, as part of a retrospective data collection of patients who underwent either a revision or re-revision surgery where a polarcup shell was part of the hip construct.As such, no further information will be available.
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, the data presented was obtained from the national joint registry of the united kingdom, as part of a retrospective data was reviewed.Based on the information provided, further information will not be provided.Consequently, without clinically relevant patient-specific supporting documentation, a thorough medical investigation could not be performed.The images/graphs provided in the article have been interpreted within the text; therefore, no further analysis of the images/graphs is 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.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 revealed similar events for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for total hip systems revealed in the warnings and precautions/preoperative section, that the patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of 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 potential causes that could contribute to the reported event include excessive forces applied to implant and surgical technique.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.
|