|
It was reported that, after a thr was performed on (b)(6) 2017, it was noticed from the x-ray on 23-dec-2023 that the patient presented with peri-prosthetic fracture of the right proximal femur.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2023, in which a cocr 12/14 fem head 36mm +4 and a cpcs cocr prim ho 12/14 sz 2 were explanted.Patient's current health status is unknown.
|
|
Section h3, h6: the devices were not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that the provided x-rays were reviewed and demonstrate stem subsidence and radiolucency at the stem cement interface, but the final image shows a proximal femoral shaft fracture that was distal to the stem tip.Based on the limited information provided the clinical root cause of the reported peri-prosthetic fracture cannot be confirmed.The fracture location is distal to the stem and though some of the images appear to demonstrate a subsidence over time it doesn¿t appear to relate to the femoral fracture.No patient activity was reported to indicate a cause of the fracture.Malperformance of the implant cannot be concluded.The patient impact is the fracture, revision, and postoperative convalescence period.No further clinical assessment is warranted at this time.A review of the production orders did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history for the part numbers over the past 12 months and for the batch numbers 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 in warnings and precautions that congenital deformity, improper implant selection, improper broaching or reaming, osteoporosis, bone defects due to misdirected reaming, trauma, strenuous activity, improper implant alignment or placement, patient non-compliance, etc.Can increase risk of femoral or pelvic fractures.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 evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include patient bone quality.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.D1: brand name, d2a: common device name, d2b: procode, d4: expiration date, g5:pma/510(k) # and h4: device manufacture date.
|