Correction - d1, h6 (clinical signs code) the complaint could be confirmed, since the information for evaluation matches the alleged failure.Medical profession reviewed the received information and noted: the most obvious reason for revision is infection (patient-related factors).No irregularities referring the primary implant, however, only the x-rays made prior to the explantation and or the retrieval good give us that information.The ct-scan shows the status after removal of the primary implant, and the void filled with a hand-made cement spacer (pmma).This is obviously the first stage of a two-stage revision, in nearly all cases performed because of a periprosthetic joint infection (pji).Furthermore, there is also status after subtalar fusion with the use of three long screws of which two reach beyond the bone (too long), and one is in contact with the pmma.That means per definition that this hardware is also in the infected area, making it more difficult to eradicate the infection.The subtalar fusion has not healed completely, most areas show a delayed/non-union.Additional information obtained from the sales rep indicated the patient had a periprosthetic fracture that compromised the talus which would explain the presence of the three long screws and subtalar fusion.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the catalog number and lot number were not communicated.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available in order to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|