|
Corrected data: see g1.Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as an patient had dislocated.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 devices were disposed of at hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released foruse, 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.Thedevices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.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 reported as dislocation.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were defective.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved inthat may have contributed to the event.Due to short time between previous and revision surgery, it is possible that the event may have occurred due to lack of post-operative care, patient non-compliance with medical instructions, incorrect implant selection, 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.
|