|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as pain and loosening.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 1 year and 9 months 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 sent to pathology department at 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 was an ncmr#55057 associated with the main part #520-10-000, altivate anatomic, short humeral stem, 10mm which document that out of 2 parts lot all the parts were rejected due to uneven coating.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and accepted after proper justification through spar.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 pain and loosening.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were defective.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 contributed to the event.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, prolonged overhead activities, inadequate soft tissue support, patient activities.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.
|