It was reported that, after a bhr left hip resurfacing was performed on (b)(6) 2007 due to osteoarthritis, the patient was diagnosed with posterior left hip pseudotumor.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2013 to address the issue, in which the head and the cup were explanted and replaced with an r3 acetabular cup size 54mm, high offset synergy fem stem sz 11 and a cobalt chrome femoral head 32mm + 0.The current state of health of the patient is unknown.
|
Additional information: d10.H3, h6: it was reported that left hip revision surgery was performed due to pseudotumor.The devices, used in treatment, have not been returned for evaluation.Without a definitive batch number, a complete review of the historical complaints data cannot be performed for the device.A review was performed using the part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects.Similar complaints have been identified for the cup and the head.This will continue to be monitored via routine trending, however it should be noted that this device is no longer sold.As no device batch numbers were provided for investigation, manufacturing record review could not be performed.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.The review of the most recent ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.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.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions are required.The available medical documents were reviewed.With the limited information provided the clinical root cause of the reported pseudotumours could not be confirmed.It cannot be concluded the reported clinical reactions were associated with a mal-performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the revision cannot be determined.Based on the information provided, further investigation of the reported complaint cannot be carried out and remains inconclusive.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, loosening of components may increase production of wear particles and accelerate damage to the bone.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|