|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. LGN COCR CONSTRAINED FEM 5 RT; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
71426005 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Joint Laxity (4526)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).This complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication identified through the review of clinical evidence from post market clinical data collection activities that includes reference to the use of a smith+nephew product.The reported issue(s) relate to known inherent procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to confirm a relationship between the reported event and the device or identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, the patient underwent a right tka revision due to aseptic loosening as primary diagnosis with osteolysis and instability as secondary diagnoses.Approximately one (1) month after this procedure, the patient experienced instability in the revised knee and required a second revision.The dates in which the index surgery, first revision and second revision took place are not known.It is also unknown which devices were explanted and/or exchanged during the second revision.This incident was identified in a retrospective post-market clinical follow up activity (pmcf) where anonymized data summarizing tka revision outcomes were gathered; therefore, additional information is not known.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10.Corrected information in a1, a4, b5, b7, d4, d10, and h4.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, the patient underwent a right tka revision in 2013 due to aseptic loosening as primary diagnosis with osteolysis and instability as secondary diagnoses.Approximately one (1) month after this procedure, the patient experienced instability in the revised knee and required a second revision.It is unknown which devices were explanted and/or exchanged during the second revision.This incident was identified in a retrospective post-market clinical follow up activity (pmcf) where anonymized data summarizing tka revision outcomes were gathered; therefore, additional information is not known.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3, h6: given the nature of the alleged incident, the devices could not be returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation stated that without the patient specific documentation, no contributing clinical factors could be definitively concluded.The patient impact beyond the reported instability and subsequent revision cannot be determined.No further medical assessment could be rendered at this time.A review of the production orders did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history for the femoral component and insert's part numbers over the past 12 months and for the batch numbers based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed devices.A review of complaint history revealed a similar event for the baseplate's part number over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the stems and coupler's part numbers over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batches based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that postoperative patient care and directions and warnings to patients by physicians are extremely important.Protected weight bearing with external support is recommended for a period of time to allow healing.Normal daily activity may be resumed at the physician's direction.Also, warnings and precautions states that the patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of possible adverse effects.The patient should be warned that the implant can become damaged as a result of strenuous activity or trauma.Besides, possible adverse effects section states that temporary or permanent nerve damage can result in pain or numbness of the affected limb.A review of the risk management files 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 these products and event.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the products failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include joint laxity, patient condition or postoperative care.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|