The reason for this revision surgery was reported as an instability after a fall and poly wear.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 10 years apart.The health care professional indicated there was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The devices were returned to manufacturer and the evaluation anticipated but not yet begun at djo surgical.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports (ncmr) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to instability after a fall and poly wear.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was defective.No other information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.Agent has clearly mentioned that "patient fell" and there are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, inadequate soft tissue support, patient activities or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.Additional reporting on this event will be provided as a supplemental report to this document if it becomes available.
|