|
It was reported that a patient presented with a pinn lnr con +4 neut 28idx50od where the locking ring had disengaged.Patient hypermobile.Patient felt movement two weeks prior.On inspection locking ring was loose and disengaged from poly and rim of poly where the locking ring sits was damaged.Surgeon stated this could be because she is hypermobile, but not sure why the ring had disengaged unless it wasn't seated properly in the first instance.Hip had not dislocated.He is has not asked for a report and implant was discarded at hospitals protocol.Did the patient experience an adverse event such as infection, non-union, allergic reaction, osteoporosis, overloading, pain, degenerative diseases, bleeding or oozing?: no, did the patient require revision surgery or hardware removal?: yes, facility name of original implant:[hospital], was device explanted?: true, hardware/explant removal due to: locking ring on constrained liner had disengaged., did patient require revision surgery?: true, if yes, date of revision surgery: [date], reason for revision surgery: locking ring on constrained liner had disengaged.Changed liner to new liner., patient status/ outcome / consequences: yes, patient consequence description/was there a clinical outcome experienced by the patient (infection, inflammation, etc.)?: liner revised, was other medical intervention (e.G.X-rays, additional procedures, prescriptions, otc, revision) required: yes, if yes, describe: xray, is the patient part of a clinical study: no, (b)(6).Device property of:none, device in possession of: none by checking this box i certify that all information that are known/available has been disclosed.If any new information will be made available, the additional information will be submitted through cst.: true.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy synthes, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.In order to determine if a lot related issue was possible, a worldwide complaint database search was performed.A worldwide complaint database search found no additional related reports against the provided product code/lot code combination.Based on the inability to find any additional related reports against the provided product code/lot code combination it is reasonable to conclude that there are no anomalies with regard to manufacturing or inspection contained in the device history records that would contribute to the reported event.As part of our company quality system process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and distributed to approved specifications.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending as part of the post-market surveillance.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.Device history lot: the product investigation found no evidence suspecting an error in the manufacturing or material that would be a contributing factor in the reported allegation(s).A manufacturing records evaluation (mre) was not performed.
|