|
It was reported that after a left tka performed on (b)(6) 2013 due to osteoarthritis, the patient experienced dislocation, instability and progressive arthritis that was addressed via revision surgery on (b)(6) 2017.All components were explanted.This information was provided by the national joint registry of the united kingdom, as part of a retrospective data collection of patients who underwent a revision surgery of journey uni prothesis.As such, no further information will be available.
|
|
Section d10 was updated.Section h10: the device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, a left revision was performed approximately 4 years post unicompartmental knee arthroplasty due to dislocation, instability, and progressive arthritis.As of the date of this medical investigation, the requested clinical documentation has not been received as the information was provided by the national joint registry of the united kingdom as part of a retrospective data collection, and reportedly, no further information will be available.Without the requested medical documentation, definitive clinical factors which could have contributed to the reported event could not be concluded.The patient outcome beyond that which was reported could not be determined; therefore, no further medical assessment can 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 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 loosening as a result from trauma, improper implant selection, improper implant positioning, improper fixation, and/or migration of the components.Muscle and fibrous tissue laxity can also contribute to these conditions, this has been identified as 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.Possible causes could include but not limited to fit/sizing issue, joint laxity, traumatic injury, limited range of motion, patient anatomy, abnormal loading of limb or patient condition.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).
|