| Model Number |
02.18.IF5.08.RM |
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Insufficient Information (4580)
|
| Date of Event |
10/22/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Batch review performed on november 3rd 2020: lot 167817: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 03-jan-2017.Expiration date: 01-dec-2021.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any other similar reported event.Other devices involved in the event: moto partial knee 02.18.If5.08.Rm tibial insert fix s5 rm - 8mm lot.1900854 (k162084) batch review performed on november 3rd 2020.Lot 1900854: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 25-jul-2019.Expiration date: 10-jul-2024.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any other similar reported event.Moto partial knee 02.18.Tf5.Rm tibial tray fix cemented s5 rm lot.1900841 (k162084) batch review performed on november 3rd 2020.Lot 1900841: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 13-aug-2019.Expiration date: 23-jul-2024.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any other similar reported event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
During the primary knee surgery, when the surgeon went to snap the tibial insert fix s5 rm - 8mm into place, it would not lockdown.The agent retrieved a new 8 mm tibial insert, which also did not lock in or seat.The surgeon implanted the 2nd insert into the patient, however, it never locked into place.A third 8 mm liner was not available in the set.Bone and soft tissue were debriefed away and not interfering with the locking mechanism.The tibial rails were clear and the surgeon checked for bone and cement with none to be found.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection of the uhmwpe insert the posterior feature of the insert, intended to be inserted in the dedicated seat of the baseplate, is damaged and plastically deformed.It presents a sort of incision with the negative shape of the edge of the correspondent feature of the baseplate, where the insert is supposed to be engaged.We can suppose that , in the first attempt to fix the insert into the baseplate, the insert was not posteriorly well positioned and not engaged in the baseplate.In this attempt, the insert was pushed posteriorly and was damaged.It was then not possible to snap the insert into the baseplate in the following attempts due to this deformation.It is not clear if the surgeon left inside the joint an insert that never locked into place or an insert that locked but without an audible 'click'.In the first scenario, that is out of label, a mobilization of the insert could occur.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|