|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. GII PS HI FLEX ISRT SZ 5-6 9; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
71421515 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Joint Laxity (4526)
|
| Date of Event |
08/31/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, after a tka surgery had been performed on (b)(6) 2007, the patient experienced loosening and anterior knee pain, when the surgeon opened the knee the gii ps hi flex isrt sz 5-6 9 was found to be broke.This adverse event was treated by replacing the poly going from a 9mm to a 12mm, and resurfacing the patella on (b)(6) 2021.Current health status of patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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, a revision surgery was performed approximately fourteen years post primary tka due to patient complaint of loosening and anterior knee pain.The intraoperative findings revealed breakage of the post of ps insert.Per the complaint form, the patella was resurfaced along with the insert revision from a 9mm to 12mm.The requested clinical information including operative report, x-ray imaging, and patient current health status were not provided.The root cause was reportedly loosening, pain, and the noted post breakage.The patella resurfacing does not represent a malperformance of the device but instead is likely disease progression, although this cannot be confirmed.The patient impact beyond the reported signs/symptoms, the post breakage, resurfacing, and revision could not be determined.No further clinical/medical assessment is warranted.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 joint tightness, abnormal motion over time, bone degeneration, fit/sizing issue, lack of ingrowth, lifetime of device, and/or traumatic injury.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.We consider this investigation closed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3, h6: the associated device was returned and evaluated.The manufacturing process of the device did not contribute to the reported event.A visual inspection of the returned device confirmed the stated failure mode.The device was severely worn and damaged.The post was also fractured from the device.The fractured component was returned with the device.The device was also discolored along the surface likely from extended exposure to bodily fluids.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 complaint details, a revision surgery was performed approximately fourteen years post primary tka due to patient complaint of loosening and anterior knee pain.The intraoperative findings revealed breakage of the post of ps insert.Per the complaint form, the patella was resurfaced along with the insert revision from a 9mm to 12mm.The requested clinical information including operative report, x-ray imaging, and patient current health status were not provided.The root cause was reportedly loosening, pain, and the noted post breakage.The patella resurfacing does not represent a malperformance of the device but instead is likely disease progression, although this cannot be confirmed.The patient impact beyond the reported signs/symptoms, the post breakage, resurfacing, and revision could not be determined.No further clinical/medical assessment is warranted.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.H3, h6, h10.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|