(b)(6), local zimmer sales representative, became aware of the event after a hallway conversation with dr.(b)(6) in which he inquired how his subchondroplasty procedure patients were doing.It was at that time that dr.(b)(6) informed (b)(6) of the patient death that had occurred in (b)(6) 2016.On (b)(6) 2016 (b)(6) had a brief phone conversation with dr.(b)(6) about the case.The patient was a (b)(6) year old female with a past history of hypertension.Dr.(b)(6) stated that he estimates that he had injected 3cc of accufill material into the tibial plateau per the recommended surgical technique.No tourniquet was used.He stated that the procedure went as planned without incident and that the patient was discharged to home with minimal postoperative pain.It was then while the patient was home days after the procedure that the medical event occurred.A family member found the patient unresponsive at home.The patient was taken to the emergency room, but expired.The event was initially reported to zimmer biomet as a pulmonary embolism.However, dr.(b)(6) stated that an autopsy was never performed, that the er staff had suggested a pulmonary embolism, but that this could not be concluded without an autopsy.Unfortunately, at the time of this report, medical records from the emergency room were not available for review.Dr.(b)(6) also stated that he inquired of a colleague at another institution that has performed several hundred of these procedures to see if that surgeon uses dvt prophylaxis and he stated that he does not.Dr.(b)(6) stated that given the age and health status of the patient, he did not believe dvt prophylaxis was indicated.Dr.(b)(6) stated that he did not believe the patient death was related to subchondroplasty procedure or the accufill injection.
|