Concomitant medical products: stem extension 160l x12 mm (cat# 204-32-16 / serial# (b)(4)).3" trocar, mod.Hex 2pk (cat# 201-78-81 / serial# (b)(4)).3" trocar, mod.Hex 2pk (cat# 201-78-81 / serial# (b)(4)).Trapezoid tibial tray sz 1f/2t, 2f/2t (cat# 204-04-22 / serial# (b)(4)).Three peg patella 32mm (cat# 200-02-32 / serial# (b)(4)).Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
As reported by the legal team, in 2006, patient sought treatment for knee pain.At the recommendation of the orthopedic surgeon, she underwent knee replacement surgery on her right knee with an optetrak knee replacement system, including the defective insert and defective tibial tray.In 2008, less than two years after her knee replacement surgery, patient developed loosening of the device and pain in her right knee.On (b)(6) 2008, patient underwent a surgical revision of her right knee due to "failed right knee with a loose tibial component".At the time of surgery, it was discovered that patient right knee was also infected and, therefore, the optetrak knee replacement system and its components were removed while patient underwent treatment for the infection.Patient continued treatment for the infection until (b)(6) 2009, when another optetrak knee replacement system was implanted in her right knee, along with another defective insert.At that time, unbeknownst to patient, patient continued to have pain and instability in connection with her optetrak knee replacement system and, in (b)(6) 2012, it was determined that the device had again loosened and failed, and that, therefore, she was required to undergo another revision.On (b)(6) 2012, surgery was once again performed on patient's right knee.At this re-revision, another defective insert was implanted in patient's knee.Patient continued to have difficulty with her right knee, and, in march 2021, she switched her care to different hospital.On (b)(6) 2021, patient underwent another revision due to loosening and bone loss related to the defective insert.As a result of this revision surgery, patient's popliteal artery was severed, and patient continues to suffer from medical complications and risks.
|