The complaint could be confirmed, since the returned image for evaluation matches the alleged failure.Medical profession reviewed the received information and noted: the ct-scan is made approximately 7 years after the index surgery and shows the migration of the tibial component.It has come to a halt, and the component still looks fixed.There is some cortical pressure reaction visible as well, making it likely that this migration (through plastic deformation of the bone) has happened slowly and most of it a while ago.The pe-liner looks intact, as far as assessable on a ct-scan.The talar component has subsided a little bit and looks well-fixed.The implant as such looks in order, the most likely reason for revision is the acquired varus position of the tibial implant.I do understand the choice to revise the talar component as well, given the opportunity to do that in one revision surgery.When looking through the information received, no other irregularities can be found.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the catalog number and lot number were not communicated.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available in order to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|