|
It was reported that, after a bhr resurfacing construct had been implanted on the plaintiff¿s left hip on (b)(6) 2007, the plaintiff experienced adverse local tissue reaction abutting the external iliac vessels, elevated metal ion levels, pain and pseudotumor formation around the pelvis.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2021 to treat this adverse event.During this procedure, the bhr resurfacing femoral head was explanted and replaced with a dual mobility liner ¿ full thr system.Intraoperatively, a decision was made to retain the cup as there was no evidence of any corrosion.The plaintiff was taken to the recovery room in stable condition.The plaintiff¿s outcome is unknown.
|
|
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 clinical information provided, of elevated metal ions, pseudotumor and metallosis may be consistent with a reaction to metal debris.However, the source and the root cause cannot be determined with the available documentation.It cannot be concluded that the reported clinical findings are associated with the implant failure.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.
|