|
EXACTECH, INC. CR TIBIAL INSERT SZ 2, 9MM, SLOPE ++; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
CR TIBIAL INSERT SZ 2, 9MM, SLOPE ++ |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Synovitis (2094); Osteolysis (2377); Joint Laxity (4526); Metal Related Pathology (4530); Implant Pain (4561)
|
| Date of Event |
03/18/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported per legal team, the 77 y/o female patient that had an original knee replacement roughly 10 years ago.The patient is needing a full knee revision due to lysis on the bone and poly wear.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
After further review of additional information received the following sections d1, d4, d6a, d6b, d10, g3, g4, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6, h7 and h9 have been updated accordingly.Section d10; concomitant products: - cemented finned tib.Tra sz 2f/3t (cat# 200-04-23 / serial# (b)(6)) - inset patella 23mm (cat# 200-05-23 / serial# (b)(6)) - optetrak asy,cr cemented femoral, sz 2 (cat# 230-03-02 / serial# (b)(6)) (h3) the revision reported may have been the result of the overall posterior slope of the insert and/or potential ligamentous/soft tissue imbalances, which allowed for increased posterior contact between the femoral component and the tibial insert and led to the reported tibial insert wear and subsequent posterior lateral tibial tray erosion.Additionally contributing factors to the reported wear and osteolysis include implant positioning, high contact stresses during knee flexion, third body wear, or any combination of these possibilities.However, the extent of the reported osteolysis/ prosthesis wear could not be determined as the explanted tibial insert was not available for evaluation, and pre-revision radiographs and images of the explanted devices were not provided.The most probable root cause associated with the reported event of ¿prosthesis wear¿ is associated with material damage to a surface, usually involving progressive loss or displacement of material, due to relative motion between that surface and a contacting substance or substances.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: h6 (component code).The following sections were corrected: h6 (health effect - clinical code, medical device problem code, investigation findings, investigation conclusions).The reason for the revision reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear and instability or due to inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.Additionally, these devices appear to have been implanted for over ten years prior to the reported event.Potential contributions of user and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and images and radiographs 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
|
|
|