| Model Number |
LOGIC CR TIB INSERT SLOPE+, SZ 5, 13MM |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Implant Pain (4561); Joint effusion (4849)
|
| Date of Event |
05/02/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Concomitant medical products - three peg patella 38mm (cat# 200-02-38 / serial# (b)(4)).Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported, approximately 3 years post initial tka, the 79 y/o male patient had a revision due to poly wear.Surgeon requested inset and imp for poly exchange.There was no breakage of device or surgical delay/prolongation.Patient was last known to be in stable condition following the event.Photos received.Sales rep was unable to obtain x-rays.The devices are not available for evaluation as hospital would not allow removal of explants.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
After further review of additional information received the following sections g3, g6, h2, h3, h6, h7 and h9 have been updated accordingly.(h3 the revision reported may have been the result of prosthesis wear.Contributing factors to the wear may have been orientation of the components and/or the tibial insert being packaged in a non-conforming vacuum bag for more than five years.However, this cannot be confirmed because the components were not returned for evaluation and radiographs were not provided.The most probable root cause associated with the reported event of ¿prosthesis wear¿ is associated with material damage to a surface, usually involving progressive loss or displacement of material, due to relative motion between that surface and a contacting substance or substances.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The revision reported may have been the result of prosthesis wear.Contributing factors to the wear may have been orientation of the components and/or the tibial insert being packaged in a non-conforming vacuum bag for more than five years.However, this cannot be confirmed because the components were not returned for evaluation and radiographs were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The revision reported was likely the result of prosthesis wear and fracture.Additional reasons for the reported revision may be inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.Additionally, a contributing factor to the reported wear may have been the result of being packaged in a non-conforming vacuum bag for more than five years.Potential contributions of user and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and radiographs were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|