The agent reported "(instability)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 6 years apart.This evaluation is limited in scope as the item associated with this investigation was not returned to djo surgical - (b)(4) for review.The surgery was completed as intended and without incident.If additional information regarding the reported event is submitted at a future date, this investigation will be re-evaluated.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was defective.The surgeon performed this procedure to remedy the patient's condition.No further action is deemed necessary.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.A review of the device history record (dhr) shows that the reported component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was no non-conforming material report (ncmr) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to instability.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, inadequate soft tissue support, patient activities or trauma.
|