• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. GII PS HI FLEX ISRT SZ 3-4 11; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. GII PS HI FLEX ISRT SZ 3-4 11; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL Back to Search Results
Model Number 71421509
Medical Device Problem Code Fracture (1260)
Health Effect - Clinical Code Failure of Implant (1924)
Date of Event 06/15/2021
Type of Reportable Event Serious Injury
Event or Problem Description
It was reported that, after a tka surgery had been performed on (b)(6) 2009, the post of a gii ps hi flex isrt sz 3-4 11 implant fractured.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2021 in order to exchange the implant.Current health status of patient is unknown.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
H3, h6: the associated device was returned and evaluated.The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be corroborated.The tibial insert showed damage to the articulating surface as well as the inferior surface of the insert.The anterior insertion divot is damaged in line with what may be expected by removal of the implant.The inferior surface is damaged which may have been a result of movement of the implant in vivo or caused during extraction.The locking details are intact.The post is separated from the main body of the implant, with damage along the cam interface, as well as along the anterior side of the post.No material or manufacturing defects were observed in the course of this investigation.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device, but no similar events for the batch, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that per the compliant details, no relevant clinical information will be provided for inclusion in this medical investigation.Without the requested clinical information, a thorough medical investigation cannot be rendered, nor can the root cause of the reported implant fracture be determined.Based on the information provided, a revision was performed to exchange the explant.However, the impact to the patient beyond that which has already been reported is unknown.Should any additional relevant clinical documentation be provided, this complaint would be re-assessed.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.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.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
The associated device was returned and evaluated.The visual inspection on the lab analysis concluded that the tibial insert showed damage to the articulating surface as well as the inferior surface of the insert.The anterior insertion divot is damaged in line with what may be expected by removal of the implant.The inferior surface is damaged which may have been a result of movement of the implant in vivo or caused during extraction.The locking details are intact.The post is separated from the main body of the implant, with damage along the cam interface, as well as along the anterior side of the post.No material or manufacturing defects were observed in the course of this investigation.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device, but no similar events for the batch, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that per the compliant details, no relevant clinical information will be provided for inclusion in this medical investigation.Without the requested clinical information, a thorough medical investigation cannot be rendered, nor can the root cause of the reported implant fracture be determined.Based on the information provided, a revision was performed to exchange the explant.However, the impact to the patient beyond that which has already been reported is unknown.Should any additional relevant clinical documentation be provided, this complaint would be re-assessed.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.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
GII PS HI FLEX ISRT SZ 3-4 11
Common Device Name
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
Manufacturer (Section D)
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
1450 brooks rd.
memphis TN 38116
Manufacturer (Section G)
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
1450 brooks rd.
memphis TN 38116
Manufacturer Contact
holly topping
7000 west william cannon drive
austin, TX 78735
5123913905
MDR Report Key12087890
Report Number1020279-2021-05547
Device Sequence Number19664316
Product Code JWH
UDI-Device Identifier03596010492364
UDI-Public03596010492364
Combination Product (Y/N)N
Initial Reporter StateNE
Initial Reporter CountryUS
PMA/510(K) Number
K032295
Number of Events Summarized1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Device Implanted Year2009
Device Explanted Year2021
Reporter Type Manufacturer
Report Source Health Professional
Initial Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date (Section B) 03/28/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Operator of Device Health Professional
Device Expiration Date05/17/2019
Device Model Number71421509
Device Catalogue Number71421509
Device Lot Number09EM12916
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer07/20/2021
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Type of Report(Section G)Thirty-Day
Initial Date Received by Manufacturer 06/15/2021
Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer01/10/2022
03/25/2022
Initial Report FDA Received Date06/29/2021
Supplement Report FDA Received Date01/11/2022
03/28/2022
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N) Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured05/19/2009
Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N) Yes
Is This a Single-Use Device that was
Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N)
No
Usage of Device Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event Hospitalization; Required Intervention;
Patient SexFemale
Patient Weight86 KG
-
-