The reason for this revision surgery was reported as humeral fracture.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 1.5 months apart.The in vivo time for the main part of the complaint is 2.8 years from the primary surgery.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.Item: 114828.The device history record was not found among djo and available zimmer biomet records.Item: 540-00-000.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, 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.The devices 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 a revision surgery due to humeral fracture.The findings did not lead to a firm conclusion since the needed records were not made available at the time of this investigation.No 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.There are multiple factors that may 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 as soon as it becomes available.
|