The reported event could be confirmed.The devices were returned and do not show any major deformation, even following 5 years of implantation.The polyethylene component does not show any major signs of deformation on the plastic, and the metallic parts still have remains of bone and tissues, which proves a proper osseointegration of the implant with the bone.Since x-rays were provided for this case, the opinion of a medical expert was requested and states: "[.] the patient in question received an ankle prosthesis in 2015 which was revised in 2020.Looking at the available info from the post-operative follow up in the outpatient department and the additional x-rays the problem lies in the talus.Either cystic changes or avascular necrosis might cause the collapse of the talar bone.The current condition of the talar bone can most certainly explain the pain of the patient.Unfortunately we cannot compare the pictures with the ones from 2015 and we do did not see the ct-scan, but as mentioned the current condition of the talus in combination with the patients complaints do justify a reoperation.It is up to the surgeon and the patient to discuss the options which in this case led to an arthrodesis.[.]" based on this statement, the root cause can be attributed to a patient related factor, that resulted in complications at the talus level.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.If any further information is provided, the investigation report will be updated.
|