Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery wast he surgeon found that the ulna component broke and needed a revision.The actual length of in-vivo patient service for this product is unknown as the original surgery date was not provided or could be established.The healthcare professional indicated there was a serious risk to the patient.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 record (dhr) was not conducted since a lot and part number was not provided or determined during the complaint evaluation.The implant in-vivo service length is unknown without an original surgery date.Multiple searches of the djo surgical records by surgeon and patient database revealed no additional information concerning this event.Should zimmer-biomet provide additional information concerning this complaint, the complaint will be re-opened and a further review shall be conducted.This complaint will be closed with the lot and part number unknown pending receipt of additional information.No further action is deemed necessary at this time.This complaint is deemed to be non-product related.The complaint states the surgeon found that the ulna component broke and needed a revision done.Agent was told that the patient had elbow surgery at a young age (over 20 years ago) and also has hemophilia and over time from different falls may have made the part malfunction.This revision was necessary to correct the patient's condition.No other conditions relating to this event could be determined with confidence.The surgery was completed as intended and without incident.Inventory containment is not required since there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|