|
Catalog Number 136-32-54 |
Device Problem
Naturally Worn (2988)
|
Patient Problem
Pain (1994)
|
Event Date 01/18/2024 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
D2b.Prosthesis, hip, semi-constrained, metal/ceramic/polymer, cemented or non-porous, uncemented d10.Concomitants: (b)(6), 180-01-60 - crown cup,cluster-hole gr.60.(b)(6), 11-000-440 sl-plus integration plus mia stern lateral with ti/ha (smith & nephew).(b)(6), 71343208 oxinium 32mm o.D.+8 12/14 taper femoral head (smith & nephew).These devices are used for treatment not diagnosis.Pending investigation.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported via legal documentation from ous that the patient had a left total hip replacement for coxarthrosis on (b)(6) 2018.The patient had inpatient rehabilitation from (b)(6) 2018 to (b)(6) 2018.The patient was informed on 20 apr 2023 about a recall of his hip device.He had a check-up in (b)(6) 2023, it was determined there that the hip implant had already caused the hip joint to decenter in the socket.Based on these findings, the treating doctors recommended that the patient replace the implant.The revision operation has been scheduled for (b)(6) 2024.Subsequent examinations and the documents from the check-up, confirmed the suspicion that the implant was showing considerable wear and tear and needed to be replaced as quickly as possible, which is why the treating doctors determined that it needed to be revised immediately.The patient claims pain.It is noted that this total implant contains device from two separate companies.There is no other patient demographic or medical history provided.There are no images of the patient/device provided.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H10.Additional/updated information- b3, b5, d6b h6.Investigation results- based on the available information, the patient involved meets the following risk criteria for early prosthesis wear/osteolysis as specified for use of a lateralized liner.The most likely cause for the revision reported due to early prosthesis wear is a combination of the risk factors.Additionally, the exactech acetabular components were used in combination with a competitor¿s femoral components which is considered off-label use.However, prosthesis wear cannot be confirmed as radiographs were not provided and the devices remained implanted at the time of evaluation.There is no other information available.
|
|
Event Description
|
The x-ray control showed a clear decentering of the prosthetic head and unusually large osteolysis in the acetabulum as a sign of inlay wear.Revision on (b)(6) 2024.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|