|
It was reported that, after a tka surgery was performed on (b)(6)2014, the patient said his knee didn't feel stable.Upon examination in a revision surgery, it was noticed the poly post had broken.This adverse event was treated by a revision surgery on (b)(6) 2023, in which a lgn ps high flex xlpe sz 7-8 13mm was explanted and exchanged with a smith & nephew back-up device.Patient's current health status is unknown.
|
|
H3, h6: the associated device was returned and evaluated.A visual inspection of the returned device reveals the post fractured off.The broken post was returned.The visual also reveals scratches, burrs and discoloration on the insert.The device shows signs of wear.Per lab engineer, the knee insert post deformation and/or fracture may have been due to repeated posterior contact of the femoral cam on the post combined with excessive posterior to anterior shear force during activity.However, this could not be isolated as the root cause for this particular failure mode.Some additional factors that could have contributed to the reported event include patient anatomy, abnormal loading of limb and/or traumatic injury.A review of complaint history based on the historical data revealed similar events for the listed batch, however no commonalities that would suggest a device deficiency was found nor an adverse trend.This failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that based on the reported revision operative findings it was confirmed the post of the poly was broken.However, based on the information provided, the definitive clinical root cause of the breakage could not be confirmed.The provided photo does not aid in determining the root cause of the reported post breakage.Per the instructions for use for the knee systems, ¿the implant can break or become damaged because of strenuous activity or trauma.¿ it was reported the surgeon removed lgn ps high flex xlpe sz 7-8 13mm and replaced it with journey ii bcs 7-8 13mm constrained articular insert.Of note, the implanted poly remained in-situ for 9 years prior to the revision.Since the current health status is unknown, the impact to the patient beyond the event, revision, and expected transient post-op convalescence period could not be confirmed nor concluded.Therefore, no further clinical assessment is warranted at this time.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.Assessment of historical escalated cases concluded that there are no prior actions related to this device and failure mode.According with inspection drawing , it is included the verification of part configuration per print.Also, per material specification, the quality and manufacture of polymer should be controlled.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|