| Model Number |
LOGIC CR TIB INSERT SLOPE++, SZ 5, 9MM |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Mechanical Problem (1384); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Loss of Range of Motion (2032); Synovitis (2094); Ambulation or Postural Difficulties (2544); Muscle/Tendon Damage (4532); Implant Pain (4561); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
08/18/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
No device return anticipated as the hospital disposed of it.Concomitants: 02-010-03-0350 - logic cr femoral cem, right, sz 5 sn: (b)(4).02-012-45-5050 - lgc tibial fit tray cem sz 5f / 5t sn: (b)(4).200-02-35 - three peg patella 35mm sn: (b)(4).Recall: z-0021-2022.Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a 72 yo male patient, weight: 102.7, who had a primary cr rtka through a standard tka incision implanted on (b)(6) 2015, presented to the surgeon with primary complaints of swelling and stiffness.The patient was never pleased with the tka from the initial surgery.After dissatisfaction and pain with the knee, infection and inflammation testing were run on the patient and did not show a positive result for infection or significant inflammation.The patient was scheduled for a revision right tka possible poly swap for (b)(6) 2022, approximately 6 years 9 months post the initial procedure.The surgeon made an incision over the previous tka incision, opened the knee joint, and performed a synovectomy.The surgeon then removes the original poly implant.The poly implant showed pitting and delamination especially medially on the implant.The surgeon tested or took a tamp to the metal components to check if they were well fixed and they were.The surgeon irrigated the knee well and then began trialing.He trialed with a 9mm crc poly and felt that the implant trial was stable.The surgeon removed the trail, completed a synovectomy, and then re-implanted a 9mm crc poly implant for the size 5 femur.The knee felt stable and was finally irrigated and then closed.The patient left the or stable.The hospital staff disposed of the implant.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: b5, b7.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information received via legal department -revision operative report of (b)(6) 2022 right revision knee arthroplasty with extensive synovectomy, 1 component revision.Painful right total knee arthroplasty, polyethylene wear with associated polyethylene debris and synovitis, components otherwise well fixed.No wear was noted involving the patellar component.No complications.Sterile dressing was applied, and the patient was transferred to recovery in stable condition.Hospital care: (b)(6) 2022 admitted, (b)(6) 2022 discharged.Post operative plan: dvt prophylaxis.Range of motion exercise immediately given his propensity for stiffness in his bilateral prior total knee arthroplasties.Patient will be on extended antibiotic prophylaxis for 1 week.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3.Investigation results -the revision reported was likely the result of the patient¿s persistent pain and dissatisfaction, which may have been due to prosthesis wear/delamination of the medial articular surface of the tibial insert.The non-uniform wear pattern may indicate uneven weight distribution across the joint.These devices are used for treatment not diagnosis.No additional information is available.Correction: h3 device was returned.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: b5, h6 - health effect/clinical codes.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information from a legal short form indicated the plaintiff has suffered the following injuries and complications as a result of this exactech device: joint pain joint swelling and stiffness limited range of motion loss of mobility tissue damage revision surgery polyethylene wear synovitis.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: g3, h6.The following sections were corrected: d4, h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, b, d, e, f, g.The revision reported was likely the result of the patient¿s persistent pain and dissatisfaction, which may have been due to limited range of motion or prosthesis wear/delamination of the medial articular surface of the tibial insert.The non-uniform wear pattern may indicate uneven weight distribution across the joint.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|