|
Us legal.It was reported that after a primary left hip bhr surgery performed on (b)(6) 2007, the plaintiff underwent a left hip revision surgery on (b)(6) 2021 due to pain, weakness, severely elevated serum ion levels and adverse local tissue reaction.During the revision, both bhr resurfacing components were explanted and replaced with a tha system from a competitor.The patient tolerated the procedure well.
|
|
H3, h6: it was reported that a left hip revision surgery was performed.As of today, device return has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.As no device batch numbers were provided for investigation for the acetabular cup and the femoral head, a manufacturing record review, device labelling / ifu review could not be performed.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.Without a definitive batch number, a complete review of the historical complaints data cannot be performed.A review of historical complaints data was performed using part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects in a timeframe prior 12 months as of the complaint aware date.Other similar complaints have been identified for the part number and the reported failure mode.However, as the device is no longer sold, no action is to be taken.The =46mm bhr resurfacing system has been phased out from the market and as a result there is no live risk management file to review.Therefore, an evaluation of failure modes is not required.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions required.The available medical documents were reviewed.The surgical technique (01/07 4567-0103) noted contraindications include ¿patients with multiple cysts of the femoral head (>1cm).¿ the reported pain, weakness, severely elevated serum ion levels, and intraoperative findings of large metallic stained fluid collection may be consistent with a reaction to metal debris.However, the root cause of the pain, weakness, severely elevated serum ion levels, and metallic stained fluid collection cannot be confirmed, and it cannot be concluded that the reported reactions were associated with a mal performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the available information we can confirm the reported complaint, however without further information our investigation remains inconclusive, and a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement, loosening of components may increase production of wear particles and accelerate damage to the bone.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|