The reported event could be confirmed, since the product was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged failure mode.The device inspection revealed the following: visual examination of the returned poly finds the removal tool still remains inside the poly.It appears the tool has been cut.There is damage to the lock detail consistent with removal techniques.The dovetail feature also has bilateral damage.Visual examination of the articulating surface of the poly finds wear consistent with contact with the talar dome.Visual examination of the talar dome finds scratches and evidence of articulation with the poly.There is evidence of bone cement around one of the pegs.There are also chisel marks on the peg with the bone cement and in multiple locations on the inferior side of the talar dome, consistent with damage caused during removal.Visual examination of the tibial tray finds most of the superior side covered with bone cement.There are chisel marks on all three pegs and scratches on the anterior side which are consistent with damaged caused during removal.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.The instructions for use instructs user that: ¿improper selection, placement, positioning, and fixation of the prosthetic components may result in unusual stress conditions and a subsequent reduction in service life of the prosthetic component.Periodic, long-term follow-up is recommended to monitor the position and state of the prosthetic components, as well as the condition of the adjoining bone.¿.Formal medical opinion was sought from an experienced independent medical expert as below; ¿the prophecy report on case 63581 clearly shows subsidence of the talar component indicating loosening.It looks like the primary implantation of the infinity tar was done well.The amount of subsidence/loosening justifies a revision to prevent unnecessary further bone loss and deformation of the tibia, from an orthopedic surgical standpoint of view.I have no information to make such an assessment from a medical point of view.Without any further clinical information, i cannot assess any medical factors any further.¿.More detailed information about the complaint event such as clinical information must be available to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If any further information is provided, the complaint report will be updated.
|