|
Batch review performed by medacta regulatory affairs department on 29 may 2020: lot 1902962: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 20-sep-2019.Expiration date: 2024-09-10.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any similar reported event.Clinical evaluation performed by medacta medical affairs director: revision surgery performed 4 months after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty due to a tibial fracture in a (b)(6) year old woman.Early fracture may be caused by a sudden movement on a weakened bone due to normal tibial preparation or to the presence of a subclinical intraoperative fracture.There is no reason to suspect a faulty device.Preliminary investigation performed by medacta r&d knee manager: revision surgery of a medial unicompartmental knee due to post-op bone fracture of the medial tibial head.From the picture of the explanted components, any anomalies or damages occurred prior to or after primary surgery can't be revealed.The frontal locking mechanism of the tibial insert was damages most likely in the procedure of removal of the implant.Reason for bone fracture remains unknown.There is no evidence that it is related to a faulty device.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2020 we received the planning review form my solution department.Planning review performed by my solution department.We analyzed each step of the myknee process.No errors have been found in the myknee process.Here below you can find the detailed analysis of the process: images qc: the dataset fully respects the protocol.The images were not expired at the time of the surgery.Reconstruction: the reconstructed profile follows precisely the contour of the bone.Planning: landmarks: all the landmarks were taken accordingly to the process.Pre-op information: as per the other cases, the only information available to the my knee team was about the bones.No pre-op information was available regarding: the status of the ligaments: this information, as for all the cases, is available just to the surgeon the thickness of the cartilage: this information is not available, since this case is ct- based.Planning: proposal: in the planning proposal, all the chosen parameters are within the range of preferences set by the surgeon on the website.Planning: validation: the surgeon performed and validated a rev.1.Planning: choice of the size: size 2 for the femur and size 2 for the tibia.No information is available regarding the implanted sizes.Femoral guide: there is no guide, since it is an uni implant.Tibial guide: all the pads are in contact with parts that cannot get detached.Implant positioning: tibia: profile of the implant show how the prosthesis would fit with validated revision.Implant positioning: femur: profile of the implant show how the prosthesis would fit with validated revision.Extra-analysis: we received just a radiography showing a lateral view of the a very bent leg.This is not usable for any extra-analysis conclusions: our analysis of the myknee process of this case found no deviations from the standard procedures.Each step has been performed correctly.
|