|
It was reported that, after a right tka surgery had been performed on (b)(6) 2018, the patient stated her knee started feeling "loose" about a month ago and presented with hyper-flexion per the surgeon, once examined.This adverse event was treated with a revision surgery to swap the poly on (b)(6) 2023, with similar poly insert only 2mm thicker to help with stability.Patient left surgery in good health.
|
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, an insert revision (exchange to a 2mm thicker poly) was performed approximately 5 years post implantation due to knee started feeling ¿loose¿ about a month ago and, per surgeon, patient presented with hyperflexion.It was communicated that no further clinical information is available at this time.The patient current health status is unknown.Without the requested medical documentation, no clinical factors could be definitively concluded to have contributed to the event, although ligament laxity is a known possible occurrence post total knee arthroplasty.The patient impact beyond the reported knee feeling ¿loose¿ [instability/laxity/hyperflexion] and revision with a ¿2mm thicker¿ poly cannot be determined.No further medical assessment can be rendered at this time.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 risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.A review of previous actions concluded that there is a higher than expected risk of revision surgery when the patella is unresurfaced at the index surgery.Patella resurfacing is an intraoperative discretionary decision of the surgeon, and this clinical decision may mitigate risk for individual patients.Actions were taken to update the instructions for use document and surgical technique to include statements informing users that outcome data reported in some registries suggest that resurfacing the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty should be considered since it may decrease the rate of revision, provided the patient¿s anatomical and clinical conditions allow.However, it is unknown if the patella was resurfaced during the index surgery; therefore, there is not enough information to relate this event with the prior actions found.Additionally, looseness of components has been identified in possible adverse effects section as a result from trauma, improper implant selection, improper implant positioning, improper fixation, and/or migration of the components.Muscle and fibrous tissue laxity can also contribute to these conditions.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 abnormal motion over time, bone degeneration, loss of ingrowth, osteolysis and/or traumatic injury.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the device or 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.
|
|
It was reported that, after a right tka surgery had been performed on (b)(6) 2018, the patient stated her knee started feeling "loose" about a month ago and presented with hyper-flexion per the surgeon, once examined.Patella was resurfaced at the index surgery.This adverse event was treated with a revision surgery to swap the poly on (b)(6) 2023, with similar poly insert only 2mm thicker to help with stability.Patient left surgery in good health.
|