The patient underwent successful revision of the custom proximal femur jts.As documented in the original investigation, the reamer dimension was not on the drawing as it was clearly visible on the side of the device and the dimension was as specified by the surgeon (not specified by stanmore implants).The reamer was made to the surgeon's specified dimensions by subcontracted manufacturer.The subcontract manufacturer supplied certificates of conformity and inspection certificates to stanmore implants.The surgeon approved the design proposal, which did not include the reamer dimensions and the reamer was also approved as a separate picture.The surgeon's complaint that the reamer dimensions were missing from the drawing is unfounded as he had already approved the design proposal drawing which did not include the reamer or its dimension.The surgeon's complaint that the reamer did not work could not be confirmed as the device was not returned for investigation.The surgeon has stated that he does not want this style of reamer again which indicates that this could be due to the surgeon's preference not a fault with the reamer, (note that the surgeon had seen and approved the reamer before it was dispatched to him).No further investigation is possible at this time.If additional information becomes available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.The complaint is being closed and tracked and trended.Corrected data: common device name/product code was corrected from "prosthesis, knee, femerotibial, cots/kro" to "limb salvage system/jdi".
|