The reason for this revision surgery was reported as humeral loosening after a fall.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 1.2 years apart.Initial or prolonged hospitalization was required.The healthcare professional indicated that there was a significant adverse event to patient.There was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The devices were disposed of at the hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.For item 540-00-000: a review of implant 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 within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.For item 114904: the device history record (dhr) was not found among djo and available zimmer biomet records.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to humeral loosening after a fall.There were no other findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were defective.No other 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.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document if it becomes available.
|