| Model Number |
02-012-51-4013 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Naturally Worn (2988); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Extraskeletal ossification (1428); Cyst(s) (1800); Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
01/30/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Prosthesis, knee, patellofemorotibial, semi-constrained, cemented.Pending investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported by the legal team; second revision operative report: preoperative diagnosis- failed total left knee arthroplasty.58 year old male with end-stage osteoarthritis of the left knee, status post total knee arthroplasty.He has a failure of the tibial component with cystic formation.Kneecap was everted, tricompartmental osteoarthritic changes were noted.Patella was evaluated, was pristine and was not removed.Osteophyte from the superior pole of the patella was removed.Extensive debridement and synovectomy sharply done.The femur was removed.Minimal bone loss was encountered.There was excellent fixation of the component, but they were able to remove it with the saw blade and thin osteophyte.The surgeon then turned attention to the tibia and using a similar system, the tibia was loose.Using the osteotome and saw, the surgeon was able to remove it with this trying to limit the amount of bone loss.There was a large cyst on the proximal tibia that had been seen on the x-ray.This was debrided and removed.Tibial and femoral components were replaced.,11mm insert used.Sterile dressing was applied, the patient was awakened and taken to the recovery room in good condition.Second revision is approximately 9 years post first revision surgical procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H6: the revision reported may have been the result of both patient-related conditions and an insufficient bond between the tibial tray and the bone, which led to aseptic (non-infected) tibial loosening.However, this cannot be confirmed as the explanted devices were not returned for evaluation, and radiographs and photographs were not provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: g3/g4, h6.The following sections were corrected: h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, b, c, d, e, g.The revision reported may have been the result of both patient-related conditions and an insufficient bond between the tibial tray and the bone, which led to aseptic (non-infected) tibial loosening.However, this cannot be confirmed as the explanted devices were not returned for evaluation, and radiographs and photographs were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated/corrected: h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: b.The revision reported may have been the result of both patient-related conditions and an insufficient bond between the tibial tray and the bone, which led to aseptic (non-infected) tibial loosening.However, this cannot be confirmed as the explanted devices were not returned for evaluation, and radiographs and photographs were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|