|
EXACTECH, INC. LOGIC CR TIB INSERT SLOPE++, SZ 5, 11MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED,
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
LOGIC CR TIB INSERT SLOPE++, SZ 5, 11MM |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Emotional Changes (1831); Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Joint Laxity (4526); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
07/07/2023
|
|
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, approximately 4.5 years post initial left tka, the 54 y/o male patient presented back to surgeon's office with complaints of pain, swelling, instability, and dissatisfaction with their left tka.The patient has a recalled implant.Upon examination, the patient was scheduled to have a revision tka for possible poly swap vs full revision.The patient had revision surgery where he underwent a left tka tibial poly implant swap.The poly was broken in pieces posteriorly.The patient was revised to a truliant crc tibial insert sz 5, 12mm.There was no surgical delay/prolongation.The patient left the operating room (or) stable.Patient was last known to be in stable condition following the event.Images received.Sales rep was unable to obtain x-rays.The device is not available for evaluation due to the implant was sent to the lab and legal at the facility.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient has filed a short-form complaint in a multidistrict litigation and pending in the eastern district of new york.Per the transfer order creating this multidistrict litigation, ¿plaintiffs¿allege that their knee or hip replacement devices¿failed prematurely because of degradation of the device¿s polyethylene component which resulted in the premature removal (or planned removal) of the prosthesis at issue.¿ because the patient has filed a suit in this multidistrict litigation, the patient appears to allege that the patient was injured as a result of premature wear of an polyethylene device.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: b5, h6-e codes added, annex a code added, component code added, investigaton type, findings, and conclusion codes added.The following sections were corrected: h6: e code 1924 no longer applies.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: g3/g4, h6.The following sections were corrected: , h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, b, c, d, e.The revision reported was likely the result of prosthesis wear.Additional reasons for the reported revision may be instability and inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.However, the reported instability could not be confirmed from the provided information.Additionally, a contributing factor to the reported wear may have been the result of being packaged in a non-conforming vacuum bag for more than five years.Potential contributions of user and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation 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
|
|
|