STANMORE IMPLANTS WORLDWIDE METS PROXIMAL TIBIAL REPLACEMENT - AXLE; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, FEMOROTIBIAL, CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, METAL/POLYMER
|
Back to Search Results |
|
Catalog Number UNK_STM |
Device Problems
Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
Patient Problem
Insufficient Information (4580)
|
Event Date 03/13/2023 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The reported device is similar to a device approved for compassionate use in the united states.It was noted that the device is not available for evaluation.Should additional information become available, it will be provided in a supplemental report upon completion of the investigation.Device remains implanted.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following was reported: i am following this patient who was operated on in (b)(6) 2012 for a proximal tibia.He has wear of his axis/bearing and a circlip that has been mobile but not moving for a few years.I want to change the minimum because the bone is not engaging.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following was reported: i am following this patient who was operated on in (b)(6) 2012 for a proximal tibia.He has wear of his axis/bearing and a circlip that has been mobile but not moving for a few years.I want to change the minimum because the bone is not engaging.Update as per x ray review (b)(6) 2023: " the only front view of the x-ray image provided showed the femoral component was in line and engaged with the tibial component [.] however, the circlip was backed out on the medial side indicating loosening of the axle.Therefore, the radiographic review can confirm the clinical report and reason for revision".
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Reported event: an event regarding disassociation involving a mets, proximal tibia replacement, axle was reported.The event was confirmed by x ray review.Method & results: device evaluation and results: not performed as product was not returned.Clinician review: a review of the provided x-rays by a clinical consultant indicated: the implant in situ was for mets proximal tibial replacement which was inserted in (b)(6) 2012.The surgeon reported wear of the axle/bearing and loosening of the circlip.The only front view of the x-ray image provided showed the femoral component was in line and engaged with the tibial component.The gap between the femoral and tibial components was reasonably even but considering that the implant has been in situ for over 10 years, normal wear and tear is expected.However, the circlip was backed out on the medial side indicating loosening of the axle.Therefore, the radiographic review can confirm the clinical report and reason for revision.Device history review: a review of the product history records could not be performed as the lot / batch information was not provided.Complaint history review: a complaint history review could not be performed as the lot / batch information was not provided.Conclusion: the exact cause of the event could not be determined because insufficient information was provided.Additional information including operative reports, pathology reports, progress notes, additional x-rays and return of the device are needed to fully investigate the event.If further information becomes available or the product is returned, this investigation will be re-opened.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|