|
Corrected data: see a.2., b.2., d.9.& h.3.Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as osteolysis, fractures and possible infection.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 4.1 years apart.The healthcare professional indicated there was a significant adverse event to the patient.There was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The devices were not released by hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.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 products 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 osteolysis, fractures and possible infection.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was the source of the osteolysis and fractures or had a direct connection with the patient's infection.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have caused the osteolysis, fracture or contributed to the possible infection or inhibited the patient's immune system.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an infection that are outside the control of djo surgical.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.
|