|
It was reported that, in order to alleviate patella pain, a revision surgery was performed.The surgeon make a resurfacing of the patella and put a patellar implant.Also, on the day of the surgery, the surgeon decided to exchange the journ art ins bcs std 7-8 rt 9 due to it was found broken when the knee was exposed.No apparent health consequences were reported.
|
|
The device, used in treatment, was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, the patient underwent a patella resurfacing along with a poly-insert revision approximately 11.5 years post tka due to pain.It was communicated that ¿once knee was exposed surgeon noticed that the post of the poly had broken and had to exchange the poly¿.The time of post-breakage is unknown.Per correspondence, no further information is available.Without the requested clinical documentation, the root cause of the reported fractured poly insert-post could not be fully assessed or concluded.The patellar resurfacing is not indicative of a component mal-performance, but instead, likely due to disease progression.The patient impact beyond the reported resurfacing after approximately 11.5 years, the fractured post and insert revision could not be determined.No further medical investigation could be rendered at this time.Should clinically relevant documentation/ information become available, the clinical/medical task may be re-evaluated.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history did not reveal additional complaints for the listed batch.A review of the risk management file and instructions for use documents revealed this failure mode was previously identified.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, joint tightness, material in use, excessive forces applied to implant or patient reaction.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.
|