It was reported that, after an ukr surgery in which a stride system had been implanted, the patient complained of tibial pain.Diagnostic x-ray examination was performed and showed loosening of the tibial component.A revision surgery was performed to explant the 8 mm insert and it was found that it did not have any cracks, but had some slight indentation.The insert was substituted with another one of the same size.The patient outcome is unknown.
|
H10: the device, used in treatment, was not made available to the designated complaint unit for investigation.Thus, visual and functional inspection could not be performed.There was no serial number, lot number, or part number noted in the initial investigation documents so we are unable to conduct a device history record review as a part of the investigation.A complaint history review found similar report.This failure mode is identified within the risk assessment.The stride unicondylar knee system surgical technique, manual instrumentation, and product specifications provides instruction for implantation with cement.A relationship between the device and the reported event could not be established.Based on the information provided, the surgeon reported that the error was in the amount of cement and not an implant malfunction.The root cause could not be determined at this time.Per complaint details, the revision was performed due to pain secondary to loosening as a result of excessive cement on the posterior aspect of the prosthesis; therefore, it does not support a device failure.Based on the information provided, the patient impact beyond the reported pain, component loosening and subsequent revision could not be determined, as no patient injury was reported.No further medical assessment could be rendered at this time.
|