|
Clinical evaluation performed by medical affairs department: 4 years after cemented primary tka, the patient is in pain and the surgeon finds, according to the report, a mobilized tibial component.So they decided to exchange the existing device with a semi-constrained system.The explanted devices have no trace of residual cement on the metal surfaces, which leads us to suspect that a problem with cementation took place during index surgery.Additionally, although we had some troubles assigning the radiographs to the correct time point, it appears that the femoral component may have mobilized too - if not, a potential problem with external rotation was probably present, but we cannot tell if it was there since the beginning or if it is the result of progressive mobilization.Also, it is unclear, with the information at hand, how the untreated components of the knee joint degenrated over the four years since primary surgery: this could help us understand the choice of going from a rather conservative initial treatment to a quite aggressive revision device with elaborated stem and offset options.Visual inspection perforemd by r&d project manager from visual inspection no anomalies can be noted on the explanted components.No residual cement can be identifed on the distal surface of tibial baseplate and on the internal surface of the femoral component.Poor interdigitation between cement and implant can be related to multiple factors, not implant related (such as cementation process, temperature, time, presence of fluids on the surfaces of cement interface).On the articular surfaces of the tibial insert, no signs of wear or delamination can be noted.From visual inspection, there is no evidence to suspect that the event is related to a faulty device.Information reported in the follow up: - clinical evaluation - visual inspection - piece returned on 03/13/2024.
|