|
It was reported that, when a thr revision was performed on (b)(6) 2023 to remove a competitor's implant (corail stem), a redapt stem size 6 was placed in exchange and the competitor¿s cup was retained.A 32mm oxinium femoral head 12/14 was implanted as well.Some months ago, the patient experienced dislocation, which was addressed by performing a second revision surgery on (b)(6) 2023.During this procedure, the competitor¿s acetabular cup was removed along with the 32mm oxinium femoral head 12/14.The redapt stem remained in situ.A new or3o dual mobility cup was implanted.Patient¿s current health status is unknown.
|
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The photograph was reviewed, and revealed that the device shows signs of use.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, as of the date of this medical investigation the requested clinical/medical documentation has not been provided; however, the mixed manufacturer components cannot be ruled out as a possible contributing factor to the reported dislocation, subsequent oxinium femoral head damage and revision.The impact to the patient was the dislocation, subsequent revision and postoperative convalescence period.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 instructions for use documents for total hip systems revealed that dislocation has been identified in warnings and precautions section as a result of improper neck selection, positioning, looseness of acetabular or femoral components, extraneous bone, penetration of the femoral prosthesis through the shat of the femur, fracture of the acetabulum, intrapelvic protrusion of acetabular component, femoral impingement, periarticular calcification, and/or excessive reaming.A review of the risk management file 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 this product and event.At this time, we do have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet specifications at the time of manufacture.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.
|