|
It was reported that, after a tka surgery had been performed in 2015, the patient experienced knee instability.Surgeon thought it could be an axle failure.This adverse event was addressed by performing a revision surgery in 2016, in which all modular parts were replaced, and implant stability was achieved.
|
|
H3, h6: the devices were not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per complaint details, a patient post legion hinge prothesis in 2015 experienced knee instability after an unknown length of time in-vivo and underwent revision the following year (2016) with replacement of all modular parts.Reportedly, implant stability was achieved; however, further information is unknown and not available.Therefore, there were no clinical factors found which would have definitively contributed to the event.The patient impact beyond the reported instability the year following implantation with subsequent revision cannot be determined based on the limited information provided.A review of the production orders did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.For the femoral, stems, tibial base and femoral wedges, 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.For the insert and bolt-sleeve, a review of complaint history revealed a similar event for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that improper fixation, and/or migration of the components could cause possible adverse effects.Also, the warnings and precautions section establishes that the implant can become damaged as a result of strenuous activity or trauma.The patient should be warned of surgical risks, and made aware of possible adverse effects.A review of the risk management files revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to these products and event.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the products failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include joint laxity, patient condition or postoperative care.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the devices 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.
|