| Model Number |
244-02-05 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Synovitis (2094); Discomfort (2330); Osteolysis (2377); Ambulation or Postural Difficulties (2544); Joint Laxity (4526); Swelling/ Edema (4577); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581)
|
| Date of Event |
06/22/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Pending evaluation.Concomitant device(s): 02-012-45-5050 - lgc tibial fit tray cem sz 5f / 5t 4328937.200-02-35 - three peg patella 35mm 4524805.244-25-09 - optetrak hi-flex tibial insert sz 5 9mm 1773648.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported, approximately 4.5 years post op the initial left tka, this male patient was revised due to implant loosening, bone loss and significant synovitis.Patient had been complaining of mechanical complications and chronic pain.Following the revision surgery, plaintiff continues to be limited in his activities of daily living, and experiences daily pain and discomfort in his left knee which limits his activities and impacts his quality of life.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3: investigation results - the revision reported was likely the result of a failure of the cement used to secure the femoral component to the femoral bone, which led to loosening at the cement-implant interface and the reported pain.However, this cannot be confirmed as there were no details regarding cementing technique or environmental conditions provided and the device was not returned for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This is 1 of 2 reports.The reported event was unable to be confirmed due to limited information received from the customer.No device was returned for evaluation; further, photographs and/or radiograph images were not provided for review.A review of complaint history determined that no further action is required as no trends were identified.The reason for the reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear, instability and debonding or due to inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.A contributing factor to the reported wear on the tibial insert may have been due to the revised tibial insert having been packaged in a non-conforming bag for five years.However, the reported prosthesis wear, instability and debonding cannot be confirmed and potential contributions of user, or patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and no images or radiographs were provided.Should additional relevant information be obtained, a follow-up mdr will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|