It was reported that, after a primary right bhr was performed on (b)(6) 2007, later the plaintiff started to experience pain that interfered with their daily activities, and radiographic evidence of femoral neck lucency was found.Therefore, a revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2024, during which both bhr components were exchanged for competitor devices.Excessive scar tissue was noticed around the cup and the cup was in a lateral position.No other complications were reported.
|
H3, h6: it was reported that, after a primary right bhr was performed, later the plaintiff started to experience pain that interfered with their daily activities, and radiographic evidence of femoral neck lucency was found.Therefore, a revision surgery was performed, during which both bhr components were exchanged for competitor devices.Excessive scar tissue was noticed around the cup and the cup was in a lateral position.No other complications were reported.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the alleged devices was performed using batch numbers, part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects.Similar complaints have been identified for the head and no other similar complaints were identified for the cup.This will continue to be monitored via routine trending, however it should be noted that these devices are no longer sold.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.The review of the product 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.Following the review, 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.The lateral position of the acetabular cup cannot be ruled out as a possible contributing factor to the reported pain and femoral neck lucency.However, without the implantation and pre-revision x-rays, initial implant anatomical placement and any micro-motion over time cannot be determined.The patient impact is the reported events and the revision.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.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.
|