| Catalog Number |
L20310 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Osseointegration Problem (3003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Inadequate Osseointegration (2646)
|
| Date of Event |
01/01/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient had been complaining of pain for a year, and on radiographic inspection, cortical thickening and proximal radiolucent line prompted revision of the prosthesis.Doi: (b)(6) 2019 doe: (b)(6) 2024.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy synthes, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy synthese joint reconstruction, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthese joint reconstruction, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A.Was there any surgical delay ? no.B.Please clarify if stem loosening was confirmed.The loosening of the stem was confirmed, as (b)(6) was able to remove it without any problem.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary : it was reported that the patient had been complaining of pain for a year, and on radiographic inspection, cortical thickening and proximal radiolucent line prompted revision of the prosthesis.The product was not returned to depuy synthes, however photos were provided for review.A x-ray investigation was performed; however, with the provided evidence, the loosening of the implant cannot be confirmed, as the implant can be seen in a correct position.Since the device was not returned, a dimensional inspection cannot be performed.The overall complaint was not confirmed as the observed condition of the corail2 non col ho size 10 would not contribute to the complained device issue.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.There is no indication that a design or manufacturing issue has caused the complaint condition.As part of depuy synthes quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.Device history lot : a manufacturing records evaluation (mre) was not performed as no lot number was provided for this device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|