|
It was reported that, after a tka prosthesis construct had been implanted on the patient¿s right knee on (b)(6) 2007, the patient required a revision surgery to exchange the journ art ins bcs std 3-4 rt 9 to a journ art ins bcs std 3-4 rt13.A jrny bcs pat resrf rd 32 mm std patella was also implanted.Any clinical symptoms and/or complications that made necessary this intervention are not known.
|
|
Section h10: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, the documentation provided is insufficient to determine the root cause of the reported native patellar resurfacing; however, this procedure is common and anticipated in knee replacements where the native patella was not resurfaced during the primary knee replacement and it is not indicative of any component malperformance.Revision of the insert is considered common practice anytime the knee is opened; however, given the choice of a thicker articulating insert (from a 9mm to a 13mm) suggests joint laxity had occurred over the 11 years post implantation.The patient impact beyond the resurfacing of the native patella approximately 11 years post primary knee replacement and customary insert revision could not be determined; however, the thicker component is suggestive of joint laxity.The current patient status is unknown.No further medical investigation could be rendered at this 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 provides complete guidelines of indications, contraindications, warnings and precautions and possible adverse effects that may occur preoperative, during surgery or post operative.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.No details of the alleged fault, malfunction or injury were provided, therefore no probable cause can be delineated.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.Internal complaint reference number: (b)(4).
|