|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as loosening.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 11 months and 10 days apart.The healthcare professional indicated there was no delay in surgery and another suitable devices were available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The devices were disposed of at hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports (ncmr) associated with the products that may have contributed to the reported event.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.No complaints have been filed against any other parts from the incident femur's production lot.Twenty-two prior complaints have been filed against empowr knee systems for device loosening.Five of these complaints were filed against empowr porous femurs (243-).This represents a rate of 0.2% of empowr porous femurs being reported for device loosening.The incident reported in this complaint does not indicate an adverse trend.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to loosening.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate that the reported devices were defective.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as inadequate soft tissue support, excessive range of motion, poor bone density, patient bone deterioration, patient activities, or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|