|
It was reported that, after a tka surgery was performed on the (b)(6) 2016, the patient was trying to drive a ride on mower up a ramp and onto a trailer.The mower fell off the ramp and pinned his leg under the ride on mower.The patient had to put excessive varus force to remove leg from underneath the mower and felt something crack and had localised pain on the medial side of the knee joint.The patient sometimes could see something protruding from his knee joint and would push it back in.The physician suspected that the gii cr deep flex isrt s5-6 9m had fractured.The patient was revised and the poly was intake; the patient also had several large loose bodies in the joint which were removed.The physician also decided to resurface the patella.The current health status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, it was reported that the physician suspected the gii cr deep flex insert was fractured.However, per case details, the poly insert was noted to be intact, but it was exchanged during the revision surgery.Per the attached e-mail, no relevant supporting clinical information is available, and there is no report of the patient's current condition.Without supporting medical documentation, a thorough medical assessment cannot be performed.In the event additional medical/clinical records are received, the clinical task may be re-opened, and a thorough assessment will be rendered at that time.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that bending, cracking, or fracture of implant components has been identified as a possible adverse effects as as a result of trauma.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors and/or potential causes that could contribute to the reported event include excessive forces applied to implant and surgical technique.The contribution of the device to the reported event could not be corroborated.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|