Us legal.It was reported that, after a bhr-tha construct had been implanted on the patient¿s right hip on (b)(6) 2009, the patient experienced unspecified symptoms that were addressed with a prosthesis replacement.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6)2019; during this procedure the hemi head 50mm was explanted and replaced with an oxinium femoral head with a -3 setting 12/14 taper and a dual mobility liner.The patient¿s outcome is unknown.
|
H3, h6: it was reported that a right hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment, have been requested for this complaint but has not become available.A review of the historical complaints data for the hemi head and for the sleeve was performed.Using batch numbers to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects over the lifetime of the product and using part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects in a timeframe prior 12 months as of the complaint aware date.No other similar complaints were identified to involve this batch for the hemi head and for the sleeve.No other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode for the sleeve.Other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode for the hemi head.However, as the device is no longer sold, no action is to be taken.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the known devices reportedly involved in this incident.All the released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.Review of the product ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.Hemi heads, sleeves have been phased out from the market and as a result there is no live risk management file to review.Therefore, an evaluation of failure modes is not required.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions required.The available medical documents were reviewed.It should be noted the acetabular cup was ¿impacted it at 40 to 45 degrees of inclination and 20 to 25 degrees of anteversion.¿ the surgical technique (01/07 4567-0103) indicates, the acetabular component is to be ¿fully impacted with 15-20° of anteversion and 40-45° inclination angle.¿ with the information provided the clinical root cause for the revision cannot be confirmed.It cannot be concluded there was a malperformance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the revision and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the available information we can confirm the reported complaint, however without further information our investigation remains inconclusive, and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Additionally, specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault cannot be provided due to the insufficient information.If additional information becomes available in the future, this case will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|