The patient received toemotion implant in (b)(6) 2015 and was revised to a fusion in (b)(6) 2018.The reason for reported subsidence is unknown.According to the rep who attended the case, an unknown orange residue was noted in the phalangeal void.Results of the culture are awaited and this report will be supplemented if the results are positive.The root cause was unable to be determined as the device was not returned.The device history records (dhrs) of the implant lots in question were reviewed and noted that all parts were built to specification.Non-conforming parts have been properly identified and segregated during the inspection process.The instructions for use (ifu) document states that reported events can occur, and all risks are addressed in the risk documentation as a apart of the design control.Several factors such as stress/ physical loads on the implants, vascularity of the implantation site, surgical techniques employed during implantation, patient factors (such as age, current state of the immune system, bone quality, and sensitivity to device materials), and patient post-op compliance to rehabilitation procedures etc., can have impact on the functional effectiveness of the implanted devices.The implant materials and combinations have decades of history for use in joint replacement applications.Also, the implant materials have been evaluated for biocompatibility to demonstrate safety for intended purposes.If additional relevant information is received, information will be reviewed and complaint file will be amended accordingly.The patient was revised to a fusion and all arthrosurface devices have been explanted.Following is the information of implants in question.Part # 9p15-s180-a lot # 75gd0122 mfg.Date: 07/2014 exp.Date: 07/2019, part # 9p15-pb01-w lot # 75id0208 mfg.Date: 10/2014 exp.Date: 10/2019.
|