|
Added d4 (expiration date), added h4 (device manufacture date).The agent reported "(the surgeon elected to use a "hoffman" style spacer because of the tibial bone loss and was unable to clear their prior infection.The spacer implants were removed and replaced with a new "hoffman" style component)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 2 years and 4 months apart.This evaluation is limited in scope as limited information was provided to djo surgical - austin for review.If information regarding cultures identified in the infection, the severity of the infection or any other relevant information is submitted at a future date, this investigation will be re-evaluated.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were the source or had a direct connection with the patient's infection.Root cause: the root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to bone loss and infection.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the possible infection or inhibited the patient's immune system.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an infection that are outside the control of djo surgical.Containment: inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.The revision surgery was completed successfully.Device history records review: a review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.First, there was a nonconformance associated with the concomitant part which document that out of (b)(4) parts lot 4 parts were rejected and scrapped during deburr and inspection process.Second, there was an ncmr associated with the concomitant part which document that out of (b)(4) parts lot, all the parts were rejected due to.005 perpendicularity feature not inspected, is was incorrect.Later, the rejected parts were reworked after proper justification.All other items in the respective lot were met with fit, form and function requirements.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Complaint history: customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.
|