This is a clinical event with no reasonable relationship to the infection or noted device malfunction.Visual evaluation condition/findings (conducted with a 7x or 10x optical ) poly wear was found on the device; however, it was not the cause of revision surgery.The proximal surface of the returned tibial insert showed scratching and pitting that appears consistent with third body wear.Third body wear occurs when a third body, such as a fragment of bone cement, gets trapped between the polyethylene insert and the condyles of the femoral component.As the patient moves, the third body can create scratches, and sometimes pitting, on the surface of the insert.The pitting of the tibial insert spine does not appear consistent with typical wear associated with articulation.The pitting was likely created by excessive bone cement from the femoral component contacting the tibial insert as the components articulated.According to the experience report, the reported infection is attributed to this event.However, there is no information provided regarding lab tests or lab results to confirm this diagnosis.In a review of the labeling - it is a known complication that infection, both deep and superficial may require a second surgical intervention or revision.Also, as part of the pre-operative assessment, the surgeon must ensure that no biological, biomechanical, or other factors exist that might adversely affect the surgery and/or the postoperative period.Revisions or surgical interventions are a known complication found in joint replacements.All patients should be instructed on the limitations of the prosthesis, the patient should be cautioned to monitor activities and protect the replaced joint from unreasonable stresses and follow the written instructions of the physician with respect to follow-up care and treatment.This device is used for treatment not diagnosis.Information about the patient and event have been requested; no new information was provided.
|