Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.A worldwide lot specific complaint database search, or device history record (dhr) review was not possible because the required lot code(s) was not provided.Based on previous investigations this complication of joint replacement is unlikely to have been the result of a device failing to meet required specifications.The information received will be retained for potential series investigations if triggered by trend analysis, post market surveillance, or other events within the quality system.Corrective action was not indicated.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.(b)(4).
|
"literature article entitled, ¿efficacy of two types of femoral cement restrictor in total hip arthroplasty¿ by j.A.Jeffery, published by hip international (1997), vol.7, no.1, pp.28-33, was reviewed.In this article, a standard plastic restrictor (hardinge type) was compared with a bone plug restriction method in a randomized, prospective trial of 50 patients.Implanted product: charnley cup, head, and stem.The stem was cemented with a hardinge type plastic cement restrictor (depuy).The cement used was a competitor product.25 patients received the cement restrictor and 25 received a cancellous bone plug that was cut using a depuy wroblewski bone block cutter instrument.Results: there was cement leakage past the plastic restrictor seen in 5 patients.The authors attribute the leakage to migration of the plastic bone restrictor.The authors were unable to determine if there was any cement leakage in the bone block because the bone black was radiolucent.The authors do not list any patient consequences, revisions, or adverse events in the text of the article.There were no product problems attributed to the instrument, stem, cup, or head.Captured in this complaint: 5 hardinge type cement restrictors for device migration.".
|