It was reported that a revision surgery was performed due to wearing of liner on (b)(6) 2019.G-taper head and reflection liner was revised, and ox-head and reflection liner was implanted.Primary surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2008 and reflection cup and synergy stem (part/lot unknown) was implanted, and they are still implanted.The doctor does not consider as device failure.
|
The devices, used in treatment, were not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical / medical investigation concluded that no clinically relevant supporting documentation was provided; therefore, a thorough medical investigation could not be performed.However, per complaint details, the root cause of the revision (liner wear after approximately 11 years) was not considered a device failure by the surgeon.Patient impact beyond the revision procedure itself could not be determined.No further medical assessment is warranted at this time.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Some potential probable causes of this event could include excessive use or anticipated wear.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.
|