|
|
| Model Number |
02-012-44-2011 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Discomfort (2330); Osteolysis (2377); Ambulation or Postural Difficulties (2544); Balance Problems (4401); Joint Laxity (4526); Implant Pain (4561); Swelling/ Edema (4577); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581); Aseptic loosening (4883)
|
| Date of Event |
01/10/2018
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D2b: prosthesis, knee, patellofemorotibial, semi-constrained, cemented, polymer/metal/polymer d10.Concomitants: (b)(4), 02-010-01-0220 - logic femoral ps cem left sz 2, (b)(4), 02-012-45-2020 - lgc tibial fit tray cem sz 2f / 2t, (b)(4), 200-02-29 - three peg patella 29mm, (b)(4), 201-78-89 - 3" drill bit, mod.Hex 2 pack, (b)(4), 204-34-02 - fluted stem extension 25l x 14 mm, (b)(4), 204-70-00 - tibial stem ext.Screw.Investigation pending.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported via legal notification that on (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent left knee replacement where she was implanted with an optetrak logic psc polyethylene tibial insert.Then, on (b)(6) 2018, approximately 2 years 2 months after implant, the patient had a left knee revision due to accelerated and preventable wear of the optetrak logic polyethylene tibial insert and was implanted with another optetrak logic psc polyethylene tibial insert.It is stated that the patient experiences pain in both of her knees and will likely require re-revision surgeries in both knees to remove the optetrak devices currently implanted.There is no other patient demographic or medical history available.There is no information on the surgical procedure or patient outcome.There is no device return.There are no photos or other images of the device provided.No additional information is available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H6: investigation results - the revision reported was likely the result of polyethylene wear as stated in the legal documentation.The extent and root cause of the polyethylene wear cannot be determined as the device was not available for evaluation and radiographs, photographs, or operative notes were not provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay corrected information.The following sections were corrected: b1, b2, d6a, e4: remove erroneous entry from initial report, g2 (correcting initial report), h6: clinical code, component code, medical device problem code, type of investigation, investigation findings.The revision reported was likely the result of polyethylene wear as stated in the legal documentation.The extent and root cause of the polyethylene wear cannot be determined as the device was not available for evaluation and radiographs, photographs, or operative notes 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 corrected information.The following sections were corrected: h6.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|