|
|
| Model Number |
SPECIFIC DEVICE NOT REPORTED |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Naturally Worn (2988); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Implant Pain (4561)
|
| Date of Event |
06/02/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Procode: prosthesis, knee, patellofemorotibial, semi-constrained, cemented, polymer/metal/polymer.Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported via legal notification, that a patient, underwent a bilateral knee replacement initial surgery on (b)(6) 2014.The patient was implanted with a optetrak devices.Specifically, implanted with a optetrak posterior stabilized tibial insert, along with optetrak stems, optetrak patellas, optetrak screws, optetrak tibial trays, and optetrak posterior stabilized femoral components.Following the surgery, the patient began experiencing worsening symptoms, pain, instability, effusion, and antalgic gate.The patient underwent a right knee revision surgery on (b)(6) 2022, approximately 8 years post initial procedure and was implanted with a different device.The patient continues to experience pain and discomfort on a daily basis in both of her knees which limits her daily activities and quality of life.No device return anticipated due to this being a legal case.No further information.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information received via legal department-revision for right total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2022.Preoperative diagnosis- failed right total knee arthroplasty secondary to polyethylene wear.Findings: broken post and delaminated polyethylene insert/grossly loose femoral component.73 yo female.Physical examination and imaging studies were consistent with aseptic failure due to polyethylene wear.The femoral component was loose.The posterior stabilized post was fractured.The fracture tip was identified and removed.There were pieces of polyethylene that were encountered during the case and were removed and saved with the final specimen.Soft tissue was sent for permanent culture and pathology.It was apparent that the femoral component was grossly loose and was removed by hand.There was some bone loss both distally and posteriorly but nothing excessive.The patella was inspected and found to be in good condition and compatible.A sterile dressing was applied, she was awakened and extubated.She tolerated the procedure well and there were no known complications and taken to the recovery room in stable condition.There is no other patient demographic or medical history available.There is no device return.There are no photos or other images of the device provided.No additional information is available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: a2, a3, b1, b5, b7, d1, d4 all, d10, g4 510k, h6 medical device problem code, h7, h9 d10.Concomitants: (b)(6), 203-90-03 - 11-3978 stablecut gts osc system 6105x19x1.27, (b)(6), 02-010-01-0310 - logic femoral ps cem right sz 1, (b)(6), 203-96-41 - (11-3974) stryker sys 6 90x13x1.27, (b)(6), 02-012-41-1010 - logic tibia traptray cem sz 1f/1t, (b)(6), 200-02-29 - three peg patella 29mm, (b)(6), 204-32-01 - fluted stem extension 11l x 12 mm, (b)(6), 201-78-15 - holding pin mini sharp point 4 pk, (b)(6), 204-70-00 - tibial stem ext.Screw, (b)(6), 201-78-81 - 3" trocar, mod.Hex 2pk, (b)(6), 201-78-81 - 3" trocar, mod.Hex 2pk, (b)(6), 203-96-42 - 11-4132 stryker sys 6 90x13/21x1.19.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The revision reported was likely the result of polyethylene wear, prosthesis fracture, and femoral loosening as stated in the legal documentation.The aseptic (non-infected) femoral loosening may have been the result of an insufficient bond between the femoral component and/or patient-related conditions.The extent and root cause of the polyethylene wear, prosthesis fracture, and femoral loosening cannot be determined as the devices were not available for evaluation, and radiographs and photographs were not provided with the submission.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|