The device was returned and reviewed along with pictures that were provided by the sales representative.The design team member who designed the prosthesis reviewed the returned information.It was clear that the first component that was tried was part of the mark 4 (upgraded) components and the base plate and stem that were in situ were mark 3 components.The second component that was subsequently implanted was also a mark 3 component.All femoral components are compatible with the both the mark 3 and mark 4 tibial components, so there is no concern with the functionality of the replacement.During the design phase a review of a patient's previous procedures is carried out to note any implants they may already have in situ to ensure that the compatibility is considered.In this case, the review was not carried out effectively.Upon review of the case a design review sheet is completed.The process of reviewing the old patient files will now be recorded as part of this process, so this should ensure there are no further occurrences of this nature.
|