|
EXACTECH, INC. OPTETRAK; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
CR TIBIAL INSERT SZ 4, 9MM, SLOPE + |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Insufficient Information (4580)
|
| Date of Event |
03/09/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
During the week of april (b)(6), representatives of exactech, inc.And exactech spain conducted an inperson site visit with (b)(6) hospital.As a result of that site visit and at exactech's request, the hospital provided a retrospective excel listing of revision related to polyethylene wear that have been performed since 2010.These cases have not previously been reported to exactech as complaints.This patient (b)(6) was implanted with a 200-64-09-inserto tibial slope+ cr 4-9 mm, serial number (b)(6) on (b)(6) 2014.The insert was manufactured on 8/3/2010 and was packaged in a vacuum bag with no evoh.The insert was manufactured on 8/3/2010 and was 3 years 5 months shelf age at the time of implant.On 0/0/21, approximately 7.0 years post implantation, the patient underwent revision for wear of the polyethylene.No additional details are available at this time.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D2b: prosthesis, knee, patellofemorotibial, semi-constrained, cemented, polymer/metal/polymer.D10: concomittants: 02-012-45-4040 - bandeja tibial logic fit 4f/4t, (b)(6); 232-02-04 - comp.Femoral asimetrico poroso cr nº4 izq, (b)(6).Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3: the revision reported may have been due to third body wear, patient-related conditions, instability, and/or malalignment between the femoral and tibial components, which led to prosthesis wear.However, this cannot be confirmed as the device was not available for evaluation and images of the explanted device/radiographs were not provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay corrected information.The following sections were corrected: b1, b3, b5, d2b, d6b, g1, h6 - investigation findings, investigation conclusions, h7 and h11.The revision reported may have been due to third body wear, patient-related conditions, instability, and/or malalignment between the femoral and tibial components, which led to prosthesis wear.However, this cannot be confirmed as the device was not available for evaluation and images of the explanted device/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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient underwent an initial total knee arthroplasty.Subsequently, the patient experienced prosthesis wear.As a result, the patient underwent knee revision approximately 7 years and 2 months after initial implantation.No further patient impact reported.No further information available.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|