It was reported that the patient underwent a total ankle replacement.Allegedly, the patient may need to undergo a revision surgery.The patient has a size 3 tibial tray and a size four talar dome.This is most likely the mechanism of failure, as that construct is not a design possibility.
|
The reported event could be confirmed with review of available ct imaging by a medical professional.Upon further investigation of the ct scans by healthcare professionals the following was observed, ¿the talus shows radiolucence and small cavities.There is loosening visible, but no clear migration.The talar component seems to be chosen one size larger than the tibial one.However, the talar component has to be the same size or one size smaller than the tibial one and the revising surgeon suspects, that the selection of the wrong implant size may have contributed to the failure.*therefore, it is questionable whether the device was used as intended." based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a user related issue.The event was caused by the initial treating surgeon choosing a size combination of the tibial tray and talar component that is not recommended and can lead to the complications seen in this particular situation.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.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.H3 other text : device remains implanted in patient.
|