The reported event that could not be confirmed, since the device was not returned for evaluation and no other evidence were provided.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.Upon further investigation of the ct scans by healthcare professionals the following was observed ¿all components intact, subtle subsidence talar component, radiolucencies, albeit no sure loosening.Failure of total ankle replacement (tar) over time is a known complication.In case of a planned revision procedure a medical opinion aiming to determine the root cause of the failure is part of the internal investigation process.Sufficient (radiological and clinical) information must be provided to enable a meaningful clinical assessment and to identify possible causes of failure.In case where a ct scan is the only available clinical source, this assessment is limited.No conclusive statement can be provided, because key clinical information (e.G.Clinical status, exact symptoms and range of motion of the patient, assessment of the treating physician) is missing.The root causes of radiographic findings such as radiolucent areas and bone cysts are often complex and multifactorial and cannot be determined scientifically without this decisive evidence.Due to these limitations, we are unable in such cases to provide statements about the patient, the procedure and/or the device in relation to cause of the failure.¿ 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 device is returned or any further information is provided, the investigation report will be reassessed.
|