The reason for this revision surgery was a sub scap failure.The length of in vivo service is a 10.6 months.The healthcare professional indicated there was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The device was disposed of at the hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records showed no non-conforming material reports associated with the component listed in the complaint.A review of the product complaint report history showed there have been 42 prior complaints reported against this part number; summary of investigations: 1 for incorrect features, 1 for revision surgery, 3 for dislocation, 1 for wear/excessive wear, 4 for pain, 3 for infection, 10 for trauma, 18 for stability/poor joint, and 1 for dissociation.This is the first complaint against this lot number.The root cause of this event was not reported.The surgeon reported no issues associated with the product.No other conditions relating to this event could be determined with confidence.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|