|
Reported event: an event regarding rom involving a triathlon insert was reported.The event was not confirmed.Method & results: product evaluation and results: material analysis, visual, functional and dimensional inspections could not be performed as the device remains implanted.Clinician review: a review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: narrative: the patient underwent a tka for severe djd and a 150 flexion contracture.He had been cancelled 2x prior, once for an elevated a1c and another for an abrasion on his knee.He was a laborer and noted to have hypertension and noncompliance with his diabetic regimen.His surgery appeared uncomplicated although there was an anterior notch noted.No postoperative problems were noted.No preoperative or post-acute care data were provided for review.Conclusion/assessment: the patient had a total knee for end staged djd and a flexion contracture.He was diabetic.He complains of poor motion and is dissatisfied with his result.He stated that he was told the knee was too big.He inquired as to a recall.Event confirmation: a tka can be confirmed.The pi event/complaint cannot be confirmed.A recall cannot be confirmed.Root cause: a root cause cannot be attributed to the case as the event cannot be confirmed.That said, the patient as presented would be at higher risk of poor postoperative motion as he was a diabetic and had a poor preoperative arc of motion and a flexion contracture.-product history review: review of the device history records indicate devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.Complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the reported lot.Conclusions: patient stated that he had a primary triathlon left knee in (b)(6) 2015.He stated that he has only been able to bend his left knee "very little" since his surgery and did confirm that he does have pain when bending.A review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: the patient had a total knee for end staged djd and a flexion contracture.He was diabetic.He complains of poor motion and is dissatisfied with his result.He stated that he was told the knee was too big.He inquired as to a recall.A tka can be confirmed.The pi event/complaint cannot be confirmed.A recall cannot be confirmed.A root cause cannot be attributed to the case as the event cannot be confirmed.That said, the patient as presented would be at higher risk of poor postoperative motion as he was a diabetic and had a poor preoperative arc of motion and a flexion contracture.The patient would like to know if his implants were involved in a recall.It was confirmed that the implants were not part of a recall.No further investigation for this event is possible at this time.If devices and/or additional information become available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.Catalog numbers and lot codes of other devices listed in this report: 5551-g-320, triathlon asymmetric x3 patella, lot tnx8, 5520b500, triathlon prim cem fxd bplt #5, lot aan8a, 5510f501, triathlon cr fem comp #5 l-cem, lot efdyp.It cannot be determined which, if any of these devices may have caused or contributed to the patient's experience.
|