|
|
| Model Number |
LOGIC CR TIB INSERT STD, SZ 1.5, 9 MM |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Insufficient Information (4580); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/27/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D2b: prosthesis, knee, patellofemorotibial, semi-constrained, cemented, polymer/metal/polymer.D10: concomitants: (b)(4) 02-010-04-0215 - logic cr femoral por, left, sz 1.5.(b)(4) 02-012-45-1515 - lgc tibial fit tray cem sz 1.5f / 1.5t.(b)(4) 201-78-15 - holding pin mini sharp point 4 pk.(b)(4) 201-78-81 - 3 trocar, mod.Hex 2pk.(b)(4) 201-78-81 - 3 trocar, mod.Hex 2pk.(b)(4) 201-78-81 - 3 trocar, mod.Hex 2pk.(b)(4) 201-78-81 - 3 trocar, mod.Hex 2pk.(b)(4) 521-78-23 - threaded pin size 2.3 collared.(b)(4) 521-78-23 - threaded pin size 2.3 collared.(b)(4) 521-78-36 - threaded pin size 5.1 collarless.Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a 66 yo female patient, initial left knee implanted on (b)(6) 2021, was revised on (b)(6) 2023, approximately 1 year 11 months post the initial procedure.The patient was revised due to poly wear.The insert was replaced.There was no surgical delays prolongation during the procedure.The event is not related to a device breakage.The patient was last known to be in stable condition following the event.No device returns anticipated due to the hospital disposed of the implants.Device image provided.X-rays were unable to be obtained.No further information.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H6: the revisions reported were likely the result of prosthesis wear as stated in the experience report.Based on the images provided of the revised inserts, there appears to be some isolated deformation and/or pitting on the articular surface of the tibial insert in figure 2 and possible cleaning damage on the insert shown in figure 1.However, the nature and extent of the damage cannot be determined based on the solely provided images.An additional contributing factor to the revisions may have been inclusion of the implanted polyethylene components in the packaging recall.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a female patient, initial left knee implanted and then was revised, approximately 1 year 11 months post the initial procedure.The patient was revised due to poly wear.The insert was replaced.There was no surgical delays prolongation during the procedure.The event is not related to a device breakage.The patient was last known to be in stable condition following the event.No device returns anticipated due to the hospital disposed of the implants.Device image provided.X-rays were unable to be obtained.No further information.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were corrected: b1, b2, b5, d1, g1, h6: clinical code, impact code, component code, type of investigation, investigation findings and investigation conclusions the revisions reported were likely the result of prosthesis wear as stated in the experience report.Based on the images provided of the revised inserts, there appears to be some isolated deformation and/or pitting on the articular surface of the tibial insert and possible cleaning damage on the insert shown.However, the nature and extent of the damage cannot be determined based on the solely provided images.An additional contributing factor to the revisions may have been inclusion of the implanted polyethylene components in the packaging recall if any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|