The reported event could be confirmed since the device was explanted and returned for evaluation.The device inspection revealed the following: the poly was returned connected to the tibial tray and could not be detached.Scratches and deformation most likely resulting from explantation of the device are visible on the poly.Key dimensional measurements were taken with a digital caliper and found to be within dimensional specifications.Upon further investigation of the received information by healthcare professionals the following was observed: ¿from the additional information given in this case (failure six weeks after the implantation but no confirmed infection) it can be assumed, that the poor bone stock and additional patient related problems (ra) have contributed to the failure.A different implant would have been chosen by the surgeon-at least that is stated- to prevent the implant from early loosening.¿ r&d reviewed microscopic images of the poly and noted the following: "there appears to be embedded debris on the surface of the uhmwpe insert articular surface.The debris appears to range from 1mm to 3mm in maximum dimension.Debris seems to be denser on the anterior and posterior ends of the articular surface.There is no apparent difference in distribution between the medial and lateral condyles (this is by gross observation, not formal statistical analysis).The electron dispersive spectroscopy (eds) indicated that these particulates are a titanium-based alloy.There is no indication of when these particulates were embedded into the articular surface.There appear to be many scratches along the anterior-posterior axis on both condyles.There are also many damage marks that are pit-like, although it does not appear to be "pitting" which is a distinct wear phenomenon.On the posterior side of the insert, there appear to be damage marks from drilling and gouge marks on the posterior end of the inferior side.These marks are both consistent with damage associated with removal of an implant (drilling tool and rongeur, respectively).Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to distinguish wear scars (obtained from articulation and use of the implant) from damage induced during the removal of the insert from the patient.Additionally, our eds is not validated for positive material identification and is used for our reference." based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a patient related issue.The failure was most likely caused by poor bone stock and the rheumatoid arthritis experienced by the patient.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 more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|