|
It was reported that, after a left tka had been performed on an unknown date, the patient experienced a broken post of the gii ps hi flex isrt sz 5-6 15.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2024 to address this adverse event.Patient's current health status is unknown.
|
|
The device was not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.However, the photograph was reviewed and revealed that the post of the insert is fractured.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that , per complaint details, a left revision was performed due to a broken posterior post after an unknown length of time in-vivo.The provided intra-operative photo shows a broken post; however, does not provide insight into the reported event.It was communicated that the requested medical documentation was not available.Based on the limited information provided, definitive contributing clinical factors could not be concluded.The patient impact beyond the broken insert post with subsequent revision cannot be determined, although a transient post-surgical convalescence would be anticipated.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 knee systems revealed that break of implant has been identified in warnings and precautions section as a result of strenuous activity or trauma.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.According with inspection procedure, the final inspection includes the verification of part configuration per print.Also, per material specification, the quality and manufacture of polyethylene shall be controlled.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 postoperative care, patient anatomy, abnormal loading of limb, excessive forces and/or traumatic injury.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.
|