|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. LGN POROUS CR FEM SZ 8L; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLO/FEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, UNCEMENTED, POROUS, CO
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
71423248 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Loss of Range of Motion (2032); Ankylosis (4527)
|
| Date of Event |
06/01/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference case: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, after left tka system was placed on an unknown date in a patient with pre-existing stiffness and 5 degree flexion contracture due to left knee varus deformity, the patient started to suffer of ankylosis on his left knee.He presented issues getting an adequate range of motion following his left tka.In addition, the patient continued experiencing a 5 degree flexion contracture, but was able to flex to 80 degree.These complications were treated scheduling an additional surgery.The patient outcome is ongoing.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Section h3, h6: given the nature of the alleged incident, the device could not be returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.However, based on the information provided, the unsatisfactory experience could be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, approximately two months post left total knee arthroplasty, the patient had a manipulation under anesthesia as adequate range of motion was not achieved due to a diagnosis of ankylosis of the knee.A review of the provided case report forms indicated that the reported event is not related to the study device, but is an anticipated event that is possibly related to the procedure.Per complaint details, the 5 degree flexion contracture was due to a varus deformity that was present before implantation.The patient impact beyond that which has already been reported cannot be determined.However, it has been reported that the patient outcome is resolved.A review of the production order did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history for the part number over the past 12 months and for the batch number based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems provides complete guidelines of indications, contraindications, warnings and precautions and possible adverse effects that may occur preoperative, during surgery or post operative.A review of the risk management file is not applicable because no information was provided that relates the failure mode to the device.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include procedural/user error and pre-existing patient condition.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 for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10 ¿ additional information: b7-other relevant history.D4- expiration date, unique identifier (udi) #.D6a- if implanted, give date.D10- concomitant medical products.G4- pma/510(k)number h11 ¿ corrected data.B5- describe event or problem.D1/d2a/d2b- brand name, product code, common device name.D4- catalog number, lot number.H6- evaluation codes: clinical and impact code.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, after a left tka surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2023, in which a lgn porous cr fem sz 8l was implanted in a patient with pre-existing stiffness and 5 degree flexion contracture due to left knee varus deformity, the patient started to suffer of ankylosis on his left knee on (b)(6) 2023.He presented issues getting an adequate range of motion following his left tka.In addition, the patient continued experiencing a 5 degree flexion contracture, but was able to flex to 80 degree.These complications were treated scheduling an additional surgery.The additional surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2023, but the implant was not removed.The surgeon did manipulation under anesthesia.The patient outcome is resolved.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|