|
Correction - b5, d6a, device code 3, clinical signs code, health impact code.The reported event could be confirmed, based on available medical record and medical expert assessment.The device inspection was not possible as the product was not returned for investigation.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Upon further investigation of the ct scans by healthcare professionals the following was observed ¿the talar component showed increasing radiolucence and some smaller cysts around the implant.In the x-ray of (b)(6) there is breakage/fracture of the posterior peg visible.The implant is loosened and at least a little migration has taken place as otherwise the peg would not have been broken.The preoperative mri scan shows bone bruise and alteration of the bone stock specifically in the area of the former talar fracture following the work accident in 2017.There was at least some bone damage/ e.G.Inflammation visible which may have contributed to a small extent to the loosening of the implant- it could be said here, that, despite these changes, the event is thus falling into the responsibility of the treating surgeon (in addition to the bone condition that favored implant failure(patient related)).Overall, however, the post-traumatic bone and joint damage that can be demonstrated throughout will have led to persistent pain, which had to be remedied by a surgical measure (joint replacement in this case).¿ based on the investigation, the root cause was attributed to the patient related issue.The failure was detected due to some radiolucency and smaller cysts around the talar component.According to the assessment by the hcp, the mri scan shows poor bone quality and the implant is loosened and little migration has taken place which resulted in the breakage of the posterior peg of the talar component as the implant did not connect completely to the bone.Overall, the post-traumatic bone and joint damage would have led to persistent pain which can be remedied by a joint replacement.If device is returned or any further information is provided, the investigation report will be reassessed.
|