|
It was reported that the plaintiff underwent a right hip revision surgery on (b)(6) 2021 due to metallosis, with purulent looking fluid present.The patient also presented hip pain, elevated serology, and fracture of his lesser trochanter.During the revision surgery, abundant greenish/yellowish fluid was noticed in the hip.A thorough debridement was performed, and all the components were explanted.The patient was transferred to the recovery room in stable condition.The primary right tha was performed on (b)(6) 2011.
|
|
H3, h6: it was reported that a right hip revision surgery was performed due to metallosis with purulent looking fluid present, hip pain, elevated serology, and fracture of his lesser trochanter.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the devices concerned was performed using batch numbers, part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects.Similar complaints have been identified for the hemi head, the sleeve and the liner.However, as the devices are no longer sold, no action is to be taken.No other similar complaints were found for the acetabular shell and the stem.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.The review of the product instructions for use found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.The alleged failure modes and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and the anticipated risk level is still adequate.No further actions are required at this time.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, prior applicable escalation actions were identified and confirmed to reduce associated risks as far as possible.No further escalation actions are required.The available medical documents were reviewed.Although fracture of his lesser trochanter was noted as a surgical indication, the revision operative report did not note findings consistent with a fracture.It cannot be determined to what extent the trochanter impingement upon the pelvis, may have contributed to the reported events.With the information provided the clinical root cause of the reported pain, elevated serology, and metallosis with purulent looking fluid cannot be confirmed.It cannot be concluded the reported clinical reactions were associated with a mal performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the pain, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period cannot be determined.Based on the information provided, further investigation of the reported complaint cannot be carried out and remains inconclusive.A definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement, loosening of components may increase production of wear particles and accelerate damage to the bone.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|