|
Reported event: an event regarding patient factors involving ceramic head was reported.The event was not confirmed.Method & results: device evaluation and results: not performed as product remains implanted.Clinician review: a review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: rejected for medical review [.]: " re (b)(4) which is from england and represents a male patient.The event description states: ".Had an abg trident ceramic on ceramic hip in 2008.Pain since.Using crutches.X-ray.Looks ok.Like to know if abg.Recall." on (b)(6) 2007 cons.Fractured right hip 12 years ago.Increased pain for 2 years.Secondary osteoarthritis.On (b)(6) 2008 plan right tha (b)(6) 2008 "right uncemented thr - abg" brief op note #7 right abg2 stem, 32 ceramic on ceramic bearing, 56 shell.Uncomplicated surgery and hospital course.On (b)(6) 2009 ".Good progress." (b)(6) 2009 ".Normal gait.Very good rom.Unable to run with any speed." on (b)(6) 2011".Unhappy.Aching and hip discomfort.X-ray satisfactory no change." on (b)(6) 2011 second opinion "x-ray perfect positioning.Impression scar tissue.Reassurance" extensive medical records prior to, during the hospitalization and post op right tha alluding to persistent discomfort with no radiographic, functional, or lab abnormalities noted.X-ray (b)(6) 2020 ap and lat right hip - uncemented tha reduced, nominal, no pathology noted.Letter from stryker orthopaedics dated 6/18/20 noting product #27395901 implanted in this patient was involved in a recall.There is no evidence that the vague symptoms that have been described for over 10 years since the right tha in this patient, not associated with radiographic or lab abnormalities, are due to the implants.The history of previous trauma and surgery to the right hip has been suggested as causing soft tissue trauma and scarring which resulted in the persistent symptoms." device history review: review indicated all devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no reported discrepancies.Complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the lot referenced.Conclusions: the exact cause of the event could not be determined because insufficient information was provided.Additional information including operative reports, progress notes, x-rays and return of the device are needed to fully investigate the event.If further information becomes available or the product is returned, this investigation will be re-opened.
|