|
See d4 expiration date, h4 and h11.The reason for this revision surgery, the agent reported "(patient presented to clinic with anterior shoulder pain - x rays revealed what appeared to be a well fixed glenoid component and loose humeral component & was taken to or for revision.Frozen pathology report revealed active infected and implanted needed extraction.)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 9 years and 6 months apart.This evaluation is limited in scope as limited information was provided to djo surgical - austin for review.If information regarding cultures identified in the infection, the severity of the infection or any other relevant information is submitted at a future date, this investigation will be re-evaluated.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were the source or had a direct connection with the patient's infection.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.First, there was a nonconformance associated with the concomitant part #506-03-126, screw, locking bone, rsp, 5x26 which document that out of 77 parts lot 2 parts were rejected due to laser marking was not legible.Second, there was a nonconformance associated with concomitant part # 510-00-010, rsp, primary humeral monoblock, 10mmx 108 which document that out of 20 parts lot 1 part was rejected during part verification.All other items in the lot were met with fit, form and function requirements.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.The revision surgery was completed successfully.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to an infection, pain and loosening of the humeral component.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the possible infection or inhibited the patient's immune system.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an infection that are outside the control of djo surgical.
|