ARTHREX, INC.; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLO/FEMORAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, METAL/POLYMER
|
Back to Search Results |
|
Lot Number 5791631 |
Device Problems
Noise, Audible (3273); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
Patient Problems
Failure of Implant (1924); Unspecified Infection (1930); Muscle Weakness (1967); Pain (1994)
|
Event Date 10/22/2020 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
On 7/25/2022, it was reported through a patient¿s legal filing that on (b)(6) 2017 the patient underwent a left knee uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty.During the procedure the surgeon implanted an arthrex ibalance uni-compartmental knee system with a size 3 femoral component, size 4 tibial tray, and an 8 mm tibial bearing insert into the left knee medial parapatellar facetectomy.Thereafter the patient was having pain in the left knee and on (b)(6) 2019 and mri of the knee was taken which revealed ¿metallic artifact is present involving the medial compartment obscuring and distorting the underlying and adjacent structures.¿ on (b)(6) 2019 the patient reported a crunching sensation on the medial aspect of the knee.On (b)(6) 2019 and again on (b)(6) 2020 the patient complained of aches, pains and weakness in the knee.On (b)(6) 2020 the patient presented to another surgeon and a bone scan was ordered which revealed a loose implant.The patient was referred to another surgeon to discuss revision options due to loosening of the implant and on (b)(6) 2020 that surgeon performed an ex-plantation and antibiotic spacer placement, left total knee arthroplasty and saucerization of femoral tibial bone for infection.It is unknown what manufacturers devices were used for the revision total knee arthroplasty.The patient continued to report issues and a second total knee revision arthroplasty was performed on (b)(6) 2020.It is unknown what devices were explanted and what manufacturers devices were used in the second revision surgery.No further information has been provided to date.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be determined as the device was not returned for evaluation.The root cause of the event could not be determined from the information available and without device evaluation.If the device becomes available for evaluation, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The complaint cannot be confirmed based on the customer provided photo, which does not display the failed implant.However, without return of the device for physical evaluation, the cause remains undetermined.No change in harm was identified.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The complaint cannot be confirmed based on the customer provided photo, which does not display the failed implant.However, without return of the device for physical evaluation, the cause remains undetermined.No change in harm was identified.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|