|
Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as pain.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 4 months, 3 weeks 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 incident ceramic head's device history records (dhr) show that the implant met design and manufacturing requirements when released for use from djo.Additionally, the vendor from whom djo purchases was these semi-produced ceramic heads was asked to conduct a document review of the ceramic head's initial production at their site, and they confirmed this implant's certificate of conformance to all material properties, with no indications of a pre-existing material defect; ceramtec's document review is attached to this complaint.There were no nonconforming material reports associated with the production of this part's production lot at djo that may have contributed to the reported event.Customer complaint history of the reported device showed no present trends or on-going issues that need review.There have been no complaints filed against other devices from this implant's production lot at djo.Since there are 52 complaints have been filed that report revision surgeries for pain in hip systems using djo's ceramic heads, which represents a 0.118% complaint rate for this failure mode, which is well below industry standard.Possible sources of the patient's pain include inadequate soft tissue support, poor patient bone density, patient bone deterioration, excessive range of motion, patient activities, or trauma.Another potential source of pain: since one of the replacement screws (25mm) was shorter than the original screws (30mm), it's possible that the pain was caused by one of the original screws being too long, making contact with sensitive soft tissue.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.Rma examination: the ceramic head was returned to djo for examination.The implant was returned with a coating of patient fluid/tissue on some of its surfaces, some of this was removed with alcohol and a swab to prepare the sphere for dimensional inspection.There are wearmarks inside the implant's taper that are consistent with assembly with the hip stem's taper.The articulating surface of the sphere has some staining from patient substance buildup, but there are no scratches, gouges, or dents.Photos of the returned implant are attached to this complaint.Re-inspection of the explant: the explanted ceramic head, upon returning to djo, was decontaminated, photographed, then brought to djo's quality control team for inspection.The head was inspected by cmm, measuring within tolerance for all critical dimensions on the part's engineering drawing.Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document if it becomes available.
|