|
EXACTECH, INC. CR TIBIAL INSERT SZ 4, 9MM, SLOPE ++; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
OPTETRAK,CR TIBIAL INSERT |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Osteolysis (2377); Ambulation or Postural Difficulties (2544); Joint Laxity (4526); Metal Related Pathology (4530); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
02/10/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported by legal brief, in (b)(6) of 2012, patient (55-year-old at the time) underwent this tka surgery in his left knee where the surgeon implanted defendants¿ optetrak, cr, porous femoral component, optetrak, finned, cemented tibial tray, optetrak, cr tibial insert, and patella single peg.The allegations in this complaint relate to the early failure of the defective device, its tibial tray and its polyethylene component.The subsequent revision surgeon noted that there was catastrophic failure with fracture of the polyethylene insert as well as a tibial insert component with metal-on-metal articulation bilaterally.The components of the device were defective, unreasonably dangerous and failed resulting in loosening, malpositioning of the implant, and rubbing/wear of the components causing metallosis, instability, limited mobility, swelling and pain.The extent of the components¿ failure was discovered upon patient¿s left knee revision surgery on (b)(6) 2021.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Data added to d8.H6: investigation results - the revisions reported may have been due to prosthesis wear/fracture of the tibial inserts, which allowed for loosening, malalignment of the implants, and metal-on-metal contact between the femoral component and tibial tray and resulted in the reported metallosis, instability, limited mobility, swelling, and pain.However, these allegations cannot be confirmed as the devices were not returned for evaluation and images of the explanted devices, pre-revision radiographs, part information, and operative notes were unable to be obtained.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: d1, d2a, d2b, d4, d6a, g3, g4, h4, h6.The following sections were corrected: d6a, h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, b, c, d, e, g.The reason for the revision reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear, instability, loosening, tibial loosening, and femoral loosening or due to inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.Potential contributions of user and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and images and radiographs were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|