|
The reported event could be confirmed, as an intra-operative image was provided.On 26-jan-2022, two stryker sales representatives reported that the peek implant appeared shaped inward, did not fit patient's anatomy, and was incorrectly curved.The extra or time as a result was at least 2 hours, which was later confirmed by the surgeon.An analysis of the implant design and all quality relevant steps showed that all steps were performed in accordance with internal procedures.The implant is designed as requested through.In addition, the ct scan showed some brain swelling, although this was not explicitly mentioned.At that point of investigation, it was assumed that brain swelling and the bilateral extend of the peek implant could likely have contributed to the event.On 09-mar-2022, a follow-up call with the surgeon was held with the stryker representatives.The surgeon clarified in this call that the implant was 20-30 % too large.He provided an intra-operative image and explained that he had to cut the implant to reduce volume and cover the defect.He further stated that the angles didn't fit.He commented the result as ¿not a bad outcome¿ and stated that the modifications have no impact on the patient outcome.At the end of the call, options were pointed out to the surgeon and rep to support in future bilateral cases, such as attending a design session; ordering a host bone model or use a medpor multi-piece implant instead.Surgeon and rep were open to these options and will consider these for future implants.In conclusion, the statements made by the surgeon in the follow-up call on 09-mar-2022 supported that swelling could be a contributing factor to this event, although this was not confirmed by the surgeon.Whether anatomical changes have occurred can only been evaluated with a post-op ct scan.This was requested, but could not be obtained by the sales representative due to the hospital¿s strict data privacy policy at the time of closure of this complaint.
|