|
It was reported that after a tka had been performed, the patient dislocated a few times.A revision surgery was conducted to address this event.The surgeon realized that the post of journ art ins bcs std 5-6 rt11 had broken, so it was removed along with the other components.The current status of health in the patient is unknown.
|
|
The associated device was returned and evaluated.A visual inspection of the returned device confirms the post fractured off.The broken piece was not returned with the device.The device showed signs of burnishing wear to the condyles on the articular surface of the insert.Macroscopic/microscopic examination of the insert showed damage related to the fracturing of the post on the post region surface of the insert.No additional unexpected visual features noted.No evidence of deviation in processing or material was found for the retrieved item.Destructive testing was not performed during this examination.No definitive conclusions as to the cause of these issues can be determined.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that per complaint details, a tka revision was performed due to the patient¿s ¿knee dislocated a few times¿.Reportedly, a broken post was noted during the revision procedure and removed along with the other components.Without the requested clinically relevant documentation, the clinical root cause of the reported dislocations and subsequent revision could not be further assessed or concluded.The patient impact beyond the reported dislocations, intraop finding/removal of the broken post, and revision tka could not be determined.No further medical assessment can be rendered at this time.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management file and instructions for use document revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.Assessment of historical escalated cases concluded that there are no prior actions related to this device and failure mode.A contribution of the device to the reported event could be corroborated as the device shows signs of damage/wear.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, patient anatomy or abnormal loading of limb.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|