The rep who attended the revision case was contacted for further information regarding this incident.Per the rep, the phalangeal component was very well fixated and had to be retrieved using a screw driver for the revision procedure.It was not clear why loosening was indicated on the revision notification form.The complaint could not be confirmed as the device in question or radiographs showing loosening were not provided to arthrosurface for investigation.The device history records (dhrs) of the implant lots in question were reviewed and noted that all parts were built to specification.A valid root cause for the pain or reported loosening cannot be determined based on available information.The instructions for use (ifu) document states that reported events can occur, and all risks are addressed in the risk documentation as a apart of the design control.Several factors such as stress/ physical loads on the implants, vascularity of the implantation site, surgical techniques employed during implantation, patient factors (such as age, current state of the immune system, bone quality, and sensitivity to device materials), and patient post-op compliance to rehabilitation procedures etc., can have impact on the functional effectiveness of the implanted devices.If additional relevant information is received, information will be reviewed for reportability and submitted accordingly.The patient was revised to a fusion and all arthrosurface devices have been explanted.Following is the information of implants in question.Part # 9p15-s180-w, lot # 75ch3104, mfg.Date: 04/12/2018, exp.Date: 04/12/2023.Part # 9p15-pa01-w, lot # 75ah2006, mfg.Date: 02/20/2018, exp.Date: 02/20/2025.
|