|
|
| Model Number |
INTERNALBRACE LIGAMENT |
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Swelling (2091); Reaction (2414)
|
| Date of Event |
02/10/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be determined as the device was not returned for evaluation.The root cause of the event could not be determined from the information available and without device evaluation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient had a reaction to an internal brace implanted in (b)(6) 2019.The patient underwent a ¿perc¿ approach ib with the first generation system.They also had a dx suturetape fibertak implanted during the primary brostrom repair.A hardware removal took place on (b)(6) 2020.Attached is the ct scan, as well as case photos of the removed hardware.The patient had a reaction to the implanted product that caused deterioration of the cortical bone in both the talus and fibula.No bony ingrowth occurred in either the 4.75/3.5 swivelock and both were removed with ease.The rep stated all explanted hardware was sent out for cultures/ labs on (b)(6) 2020 and the surgeon plans to report back to the rep once the results are received.Additional information has been requested.Update 04/14/2020: numerous attempts have been made to obtain additional information regarding this incident.Due to the current covid-19 pandemic the practitioner's office has been closed and at this time obtaining additional information will be difficult.The sales rep will continue to reach out to the surgeon/ facility and once additional information is obtained it will be provided to arthrex.Additional information obtained 05/22/2020: the patient's original procedure took place (b)(6) 2019.During the procedure an ar-1688-cp (lot 1028636) was implanted.Approximately three months post op the patient began experiencing pain, swelling and tenderness around the surgical site.A few weeks prior to the revision site drainage at the surgical site was also present.Surgeon performed a second surgery on (b)(6) 2020 during which and irrigation and debridement of the ankle was done and the implant was removed from the patient.The explanted device is not available to return for evaluation as the facility sent the device for culture.Culture results were inconclusive of osteomyelitis.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|