• 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 ORTHOPAEDICS AG RT-PLUS TIBIAL INSERT 2/14MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, FEMOROTIBIAL, CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, METAL/POLYMER

  • 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 ORTHOPAEDICS AG RT-PLUS TIBIAL INSERT 2/14MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, FEMOROTIBIAL, CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, METAL/POLYMER Back to Search Results
Catalog Number 75005481
Device Problem Break (1069)
Patient Problem Failure of Implant (1924)
Event Date 09/03/2021
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
Internal complaint reference case- (b)(4).
 
Event Description
It was reported that, after a tka performed on (b)(6) 2020, the patient presented on (b)(6) 2021 with the rt-plus tibial insert 2/14mm broken.On (b)(6) 2021 a revision surgery was performed in order to resolve this problem.The current health status of the patient is unknown.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Results of investigation: it was reported that, after a total knee arthroplasty performed on (b)(6) 2020, the patient presented on (b)(6) 2021 with the rt-plus tibial insert 2/14mm broken.The device, used in treatment, was returned for investigation.Upon visual inspection, the reported failure mode could be confirmed.The returned insert is fractured at the distal end.Furthermore, the clamp used to fix the insert to the tibial plateau is broken as well.A macroscopic analysis of the insert fracture surface shows striations which indicate that the fracture originated on the posterior side.However, no fatigue striations are visible on the clamp fracture surface based on the performed microscopic analysis.The fracture surface shows signs of ductile overload.Furthermore, the edges of the fragments are rounded which indicates a movement under load between the two insert fragments after the fracture.A review of the complaint history was performed for the part number in scope.Similar complaints were identified.However, the occurrence is in line with the corresponding risk file.A review of the batch record revealed no deviations from the standard manufacturing process, that could have contributed to the reported issue.There is no indication that the device failed to match specification at the time of manufacturing.A review of past corrective actions was performed.No further escalation is required.A review of the device labeling revealed that the instructions for use states fracture of the component as a possible risk factor in combination with the implantation of a knee prosthesis.The concerning failure mode and the severity are covered in the concerning risk management file.Based on the performed medical investigation, the dislocation and fracture of the insert and clamp could be confirmed.In the revision operative report, it is noted that a week prior the revision surgery, the patient had a dislocation of the knee joint prothesis as part of a slipping trauma in the toilet chair and obviously the maneuver led to a dislocation of the insert.The provided x-rays were reviewed; however they do not contribute to the root cause of the dislocation and breakage of the tibial insert.They just confirm the event and dislocation.To sum up, it cannot be concluded that the reported events were associated with a malperformance of the implant.However, from the performed visual inspection it can be concluded that the fracture originated from the posterior side which indicates a hyperextension of the knee.Therefore, the acute fracture of the clamp and the inlay may have occurred at the same time when the patient luxated and potentially hyperextended his knee a week before the revision surgery.Based on the performed investigations, the relationship between the reported event and the device was confirmed and the probable cause for the fracture is attributed to a known inherent risk of the device.The need for corrective actions is not indicated.The returned part will be archived and smith+nephew will continue to monitor for similar issues.This investigation is considered closed.
 
Event Description
It was reported that, after a tka performed on (b)(6) 2020, the patient presented on (b)(6) 2021 with the rt-plus tibial insert 2/14mm broken.On (b)(6) 2021 a revision surgery was performed in order to resolve this problem.The current health status of the patient is good.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
RT-PLUS TIBIAL INSERT 2/14MM
Type of Device
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, FEMOROTIBIAL, CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, METAL/POLYMER
Manufacturer (Section D)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS AG
schachenallee 29
aarau CH-50 00
SZ  CH-5000
Manufacturer (Section G)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS AG
schachenallee 29
aarau CH-50 00
SZ   CH-5000
Manufacturer Contact
holly topping
7000 west william cannon drive
austin, TX 78735
5123913905
MDR Report Key12601560
MDR Text Key280074038
Report Number9613369-2021-00384
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code KRO
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeGM
PMA/PMN Number
K021714
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Consumer
Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 02/22/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received10/08/2021
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue Number75005481
Device Lot NumberD1924350
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer12/22/2021
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Date Manufacturer Received02/21/2022
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured11/12/2019
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Hospitalization; Required Intervention; Other;
Patient Age82 YR
Patient SexFemale
-
-