MAUDE Adverse Event Report: ENCORE MEDICAL L.P. TAPERFILL HIP; TAPERFILL HIP STEM, LATERAL OFFSET, SIZE 14

Model Number	425-97-014
Health Effect - Clinical Codes	Fall (1848); Failure of Implant (1924)
Date of Event	11/13/2020
Type of Reportable Event	Serious Injury
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document if it becomes available.
Event or Problem Description
Revision surgery - patient fell and suffered a periprosthetic fracture.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as patient fell and periprosthetic fracture.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 21 days apart.The healthcare professional indicated there was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The device was returned to manufacturer and the device evalutation anticipated but not yet begun to djo surgical.A review of the device history record (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was no non-conforming material report (ncmr) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported device showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.The root cause of this complaint was reported as patient fell and periprosthetic fracture.There were no 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.Agent has clearly mentioned that the patient fell.Due to the short time between previous and revision surgery, it is also possible that the event may have been occurred due to lack of post-operative care, patient noncompliance with medical instructions, patient activities or trauma.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo.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.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as patient fell and periprosthetic fracture.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 21 days apart.The healthcare professional indicated there was a delay in surgery by 30 minutes and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The device was returned to manufacturer and the device evaluation anticipated but not yet begun at djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history record (dhr) shows that the reported component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was no non-conforming material report (ncmr) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported device 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 patient fell and periprosthetic fracture.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was 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.Agent has clearly mentioned that the "patient fell" and due to the short time between previous and revision surgery, it is also possible that the event may have been occurred due to lack of post-operative care, patient noncompliance with medical instructions, patient activities or trauma.There are multiple factors that may also 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.

• Brand Name: TAPERFILL HIP
• Common Device Name: TAPERFILL HIP STEM, LATERAL OFFSET, SIZE 14
• Manufacturer (Section D): ENCORE MEDICAL L.P.; 9800 metric blvd; austin, tx 78758-5445
• MDR Report Key: 10994278
• Report Number: 1644408-2020-01107
• Device Sequence Number: 13625949
• Product Code: LPH
• UDI-Device Identifier: 00888912078726
• UDI-Public: (01)00888912078726
• Combination Product (Y/N): N
• Initial Reporter Country: US
• PMA/510(K) Number: K130099
• Number of Events Summarized: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Device Implanted Year: 2020
• Device Explanted Year: 2020
• Serviced by Third Party (Y/N): Unknown
• Reporter Type: Manufacturer
• Report Source: company representative
• Initial Reporter Occupation: Non-Healthcare Professional
• Type of Report: Initial,Followup,Followup
• Report Date (Section B): 07/22/2021

1 Device was Involved in the Event

1 Patient was Involved in the Event

• Is this an Adverse Event Report?: Yes
• Is this a Product Problem Report?: No
• Operator of Device: Health Professional
• Device Expiration Date: 12/04/2025
• Device Model Number: 425-97-014
• Device Catalogue Number: 425-97-014
• Device Lot Number: 179R2013
• Was Device Available for Evaluation?: Yes
• Initial Date Received by Manufacturer: 11/13/2020
• Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer: 02/03/2021; 03/31/2021
• Initial Report FDA Received Date: 12/11/2020
• Supplement Report FDA Received Date: 03/03/2021; 07/22/2021
• Is This a Single-Use Device that was Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N): No
• Patient Sequence Number: 1
• Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event: Required Intervention
• Patient Age: 62 YR