|
The reason for this revision surgery, the agent reported, "(tibia did not in grow.We had to remove the femur to get the tibia component out)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred, 8 months and 3 weeks apart.This evaluation is limited in scope, as the items associated with this investigation were not returned to (b)(6) for examination.The surgery was completed as intended and without incident.If additional information regarding the reported event 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 defective.The surgeon, performed this procedure to remedy the patient's condition.No further action is deemed necessary.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.There was an ncmr#: (b)(4).Associated with the concomitant part #: 244-02-108, empowr porous femur with ha nano, 8r.Which document, that out of 9 parts lot, all parts were rejected, due to op- 540 didn't remeasure the parts for any size verification, after the came from ha coating vendor.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and accepted after proper justification.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 tibial in-growth.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 event.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of (b)(6) such as poor bone density, inadequate soft tissue support, patient activities or trauma.
|