|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation but the pictures were reviewed, and the streak down at the medial condyle was confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, a revision was performed approximately 2.5 years post implantation due to ¿the femur had a streak down at the medial condyle and the lgn xlpe cr insert sz 1-2 9mm was broken¿.Although there were no patient symptoms reported (revision due to unspecified reasons), reportedly ¿the sales rep believed the insert breaking caused the damage to the femur¿.The provided photo image of the explanted components appears to show the femoral component condyle resembling a metal-on-metal contact/articulation deformation, such as that which may occur with femoral condyle and tibial baseplate articulation when the poly insert has disassociated.The requested clinical documentation has not been provided as of the date of this medical investigation.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 for the part number over the past 12 months and for the batch number based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that that wear of the polyethylene articulating surfaces of knee replacement components has been reported following total knee replacement.Higher rates of wear may be initiated by particles of cement, metal, or other debris which can cause abrasion of the articulating surfaces.Higher rates of wear may shorten the useful life of the prosthesis, and lead to early revision surgery to replace the worn prosthetic components has been identified as a possible adverse effects.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.Potential causes could include but are not limited to friction, joint tightness or lifetime of device.The contribution of the device to the reported incident could be corroborated since it was required a revision surgery to treat this event.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.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.
|