STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS-MAHWAH TRIATHLON CR FEM COMP #3 R-CEM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLO/FEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, UNCEMENTED, POROUS, CO
|
Back to Search Results |
|
Catalog Number 5510F302 |
Device Problem
Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method (2017)
|
Patient Problem
Injury (2348)
|
Event Date 12/06/2018 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Review of the device history records indicate devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.There have been no other similar events for the lot referenced.It was noted that the device is not available for evaluation.Should additional information become available, it will be provided in a supplemental report upon completion of the investigation.The information in this report was provided by stryker orthopaedics legal affairs department.No additional information is available at this time due to the ongoing litigation.Should additional information become available, the evaluation summary will be submitted in a supplemental report.Device not returned.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported by the attorney, through the filing of a legal claim, that the claimant underwent a right total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2018.Its further alleged that the implant was correct, size 3, however it was cemented style when the doctor had requested a cementless style implant.After review of the x-rays, the surgeon expressed that the implant was not the correct ingrowth type surface.The patient underwent revision surgery on (b)(6) 2018 to exchange the femoral component.Update 15/april/2019: as reported by rep: it was reported a tka was planned using a press-fit femur.A cemented femur was implanted without cement.Rep was not in the operating room at the time of implantation and discovered the error when applying device labels to the billing sheet.Surgeon was notified and had to wait an additional day to revise the patient (the patient had taken a drink).The liner was removed to make room to remove the femur (there are no allegations against the liner).The cemented femoral component was revised to the planned press-fit femur.The surgeon reported that all follow-ups since the revision have been very positive and that the patient has an excellent result.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
An event regarding incorrect selection involving a cemented triathlon femoral component was reported.The event was confirmed based on the implant sheets provided.Method & results: -device evaluation and results: a review of the labels supplied on the outer carton of the device indicate: "triathlon cruciate retaining femoral right ; cemented" and "warning: this device is intended for cemented use only" -clinician review: no medical records were received for review with a clinical consultant.-device history review: all devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.-complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the reported lot.Conclusion: it is identified on the returned implant sheets that the patient underwent a tka with triathlon components including a cr femoral component (catalog 5510f302 - cemented) on (b)(6) 2018.The patient underwent revision surgery on (b)(6) 2018 whereby the femoral component was exchanged to a press-fit cr femoral component (catalog 5517-f-302).A review of the outer box labels provided with cr femoral component, catalog 5510f302, indicates "triathlon cruciate retaining femoral right ; cemented" and "warning: this device is intended for cemented use only".Based on the information provided, it can be concluded that this was a case of user error whereby a cemented implant was implanted without cement and subsequently revised.No further investigation is required at this time.If additional information becomes available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported by the attorney, through the filing of a legal claim, that the claimant underwent a right total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2018.Its further alleged that the implant was correct, size 3, however it was cemented style when the doctor had requested a cementless style implant.After review of the x-rays, the surgeon expressed that the implant was not the correct ingrowth type surface.The patient underwent revision surgery on (b)(6) 2018 to exchange the femoral component.Update 15/april/2019: as reported by rep: it was reported a tka was planned using a press-fit femur.A cemented femur was implanted without cement.Rep was not in the operating room at the time of implantation and discovered the error when applying device labels to the billing sheet.Surgeon was notified and had to wait an additional day to revise the patient (the patient had taken a drink).The liner was removed to make room to remove the femur (there are no allegations against the liner).The cemented femoral component was revised to the planned press-fit femur.The surgeon reported that all follow-ups since the revision have been very positive and that the patient has an excellent result.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|