|
Catalog Number 74122542 |
Device Problem
Biocompatibility (2886)
|
Patient Problems
Pain (1994); Synovitis (2094); Metal Related Pathology (4530)
|
Event Date 11/12/2019 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
*us legal mdl* it was reported that, after a bhr tha construct had been implanted on (b)(6) 2008, the plaintiff experienced metal-on-metal pain reaction with synovitis, and elevated ion levels.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2019 to treat this adverse event.During the revision surgery, metallosis was found on the femoral head and trunnion.The femoral head was explanted.The patient outcome is unknown.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Internal reference number: (b)(4).
|
|
Event Description
|
*us legal mdl* it was reported that, after a bhr tha construct had been implanted on (b)(6) 2008, the plaintiff experienced metal-on-metal pain reaction with synovitis, and elevated ion levels.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2019 to treat this adverse event.During the revision surgery, metallosis was found on the femoral head and trunnion.The femoral head was explanted.The patient outcome is unknown.After revision surgery plaintiff develop foot drop (cover under case (b)(4)).The left hip, however, did not presented any other complications.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H3, h6: it was reported that left hip revision has been performed.As of today, the implanted devices all of which were used in the treatment, and additional information has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.Without definitive lot numbers, a complete complaint history review cannot be performed for the devices involved.As no device batch numbers were provided for investigation, a manufacturing record review and device labelling / ifu review could not be performed.All of the devices would have met manufacturing specifications.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.A risk management review was performed.No additional risks were identified as result of the reported event and no further actions are required at this time.The available medical documents have been reviewed.Per the surgical technique, the acetabular component is to be impacted with 15-20° of anteversion.However, the implantation operative report indicated the hip was placed at about 35°of anteversion.It is unknown if the increased anteversion of the acetabular component led to accelerated wear and the reported ¿metal-on-metal pain reaction with synovitis, elevated ion levels¿, and intraoperative findings of black char type material on the trunnion.Without the supporting lab/pathology results, imaging, and/or the analysis of the explanted components, the root cause of the events cannot be confirmed.It cannot be concluded that the reported clinical reactions were associated with a mal-performance of the implant or implant failure.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Without return of the actual devices or further information we cannot further investigate or confirm the details supplied in this complaint.The investigation remains inconclusive and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Additionally, specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault cannot be provided due to the insufficient information.If the products or additional information become available in the future, this case will be reopened.No preventative or corrective action has been initiated as a result of this investigation.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
G3, h2, h3, and h6: it was reported that a left hip revision surgery was performed due to elevated metal ion levels and a metal-on-metal pain reaction with synovitis.The hemi-head used in treatment was explanted but was not returned for evaluation.The other devices used in treatment remain implanted in the patient, hence cannot be returned for evaluation.Additional information has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.A review of the complaint history for the cup, hemi-head, modular sleeve was performed using batch numbers in search of similar recurring reports for the products during their lifetimes.No other similar complaints have been identified for the hemi-head.Similar complaints have been identified for the sleeve.However, as the device is no longer sold, no action is to be taken.A similar complaint has been identified for the cup, though this relates to the same patient and device.On account of the fact devices reportedly involved in this incident were not returned for evaluation, the relevant production records were reviewed.All released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.Review of manufacturing records did not reveal any waivers, concessions, manufacturing, or material abnormalities that could have contributed to this issue.Review of the product ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.No additional risks were identified as result of the reported event.No further actions are required at this time.The available medical documents were reviewed.Per the surgical technique, the acetabular component is to be impacted with 15-20° of anteversion.However, the implantation operative report indicated the hip was placed at about 35°of anteversion.It is unknown if the increased anteversion of the acetabular component led to accelerated wear and the reported ¿metal-on-metal pain reaction with synovitis, elevated ion levels¿, and intraoperative findings of black char type material on the trunnion.Based on the information provided, the clinical root cause of the reported events cannot be confirmed.It cannot be concluded that the reported clinical reactions were associated with a malperformance of the implant or implant failure.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Without the return of the actual product involved or further product information, our investigation could not proceed and remains inconclusive, and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Furthermore, based on the limited information provided, we are unable to determine specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.A2: patient information available.D10: add concomitants g4: add 510k code.H6: update codes.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|