|
The device, used in treatment, was not returned for evaluation.Therefore, product analysis could not be performed at this time.So the reported event could not be confirmed.A medical investigation was conducted and confirms this case reports that a revision was performed approximately 5 months post-implantation, due to recurrent dislocation.Per email correspondence, the patient was non-compliant, and did not follow the doctor's recommendation for post-op activity level.The dislocation was reported to be a result of sitting in a position that was advised against.Consent has not been granted to provide the requested surgical reports and x-rays.Therefore, the patient impact beyond the revision cannot be determined.Due to the limited information provided, a thorough assessment cannot be performed.Should additional clinically relevant documentation become available, the clinical/medical task may be re-evaluated.A review of complaint history on the listed part revealed no prior complaints for the listed batch with the same failure mode.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of risk management files and instructions for use found that the reported failure was documented appropriately.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, patient anatomy or abnormal loading of limb.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the actual product involved and/or device information, our investigation cannot proceed.If the device or new information is received in the future, this complaint can be re-opened.No further actions are being taken at this time.
|