|
It was reported that, after a right uka surgery performed in (b)(6) 2015, patient experienced unexplained pain.This event was addressed via revision surgery on (b)(6) 2015 to exchange the femoral and tibial components, and the insert.Patient health status is not known.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.
|
|
H3, h6: 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 right revision was performed approximately 10.5 months post unicompartmental knee arthroplasty due to unexplained pain.As of the date of this medical investigation, the requested clinical documentation has not been provided 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, possible clinical factors which could have contributed to the reported event could be definitively concluded.The patient outcome beyond that which was reported could not be confirmed nor concluded; 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 improper fixation, and/or migration of the components could cause possible adverse effects, besides, it establishes that the implant can become damaged as a result of strenuous activity or trauma.The patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of possible adverse effects, this has been identified as a warnings and precautions.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.Factors that could contribute include but are not limited to traumatic injury, joint tightness 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.We consider this investigation closed.Internal complaint reference number: (b)(4).
|