| Model Number |
402-32-010 |
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
04/12/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document as soon as it becomes available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Revision surgery - due to a zimmer acebabular cup and liner in patient, an exacteeh stem and a djo chrome 3z +10.5 femoral head in patient.The reason for revision was eccentric wear of poly insert.Surgeon removed the head and tried a ceramic delta options 32mm head with +7mm neck.Stems trunim was very worn and would not grip new neck and head.Old 32mm +10.5 head was re-implanted on f.Trunim and zimmer poly was changed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document as soon as it becomes available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Revision surgery - due to a zimmer acetabular cup and liner in patient, an exactech stem and a djo chrome sz +10.5 femoral head in patient.The reason for revision was eccentric wear of poly insert.We removed our head and tried a ceramic delta options 32mm head with +7mm neck.Stems trunnion was very worn and would not grip new neck and head.Old 32mm +10.5 head was re-implanted on it.Trunnion and zimmer poly were changed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as eccentric wear of poly insert.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in thisevent occurred 7.4 years 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 device was disposed of at hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history record (dhr) shows that the reported component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material report (ncmr) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported device 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 eccentric wear of poly insert.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was defective.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|