| Catalog Number |
01.26.3244HCT |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Cyst(s) (1800)
|
| Date of Event |
06/11/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Batch review performed on 11-jul-2024 lot 136292: (b)(6) items manufactured and released on 12-feb-2014.Expiration date: 2018-12-31.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, all items of the same lot have been sold with no similar reported event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
At about 10 years and 1 month after primary, the patient has been revised because of cyst resorption probably caused by pe liner wear.The liner has been successfully revised.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection performed on (b)(6) 2024.The liner appeared damaged due to the presence of scratches, grooves and extraction screw hole drilled during revision surgery to extract the liner from the shell.A yellowed color was present in the entire inner surface and in the central band in the outer cone.From the visual analysis, there were no particular or evident signs other than a slight eccentric deformation of the inner socket; for these reasons, a qc analysis from in-depth scans will follow to try to reconstruct the current geometry and compare it to the design specifications.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection performed by r&d project manager and updated after the analysis performed by the cq: the liner appeared damaged due to the presence of scratches, grooves and extraction screw hole drilled during revision surgery to extract the liner from the shell.A yellowed color was present in the entire inner surface and in the central band in the outer cone.From the visual analysis, there were no particular or evident signs other than a slight eccentric deformation of the inner socket; for these reasons, a qc analysis from in-depth scans will follow to try to reconstruct the current geometry and compare it to the design specifications.Clinical evaluation performed by medical affairs director: 10 years after primary cementless tha, a resorption cyst is identified at follow up and the surgeon decides to proceed with a substitution of the pe insert.The hypothesis made by the surgeon is that the cyst had been originated by pe wear, which is of course possible.The decision to proceed with revision before the clinical condition of the patient could deteriorate is clearly a medical decision: we understand that at this time the surgery was very short and little traumatic, although someone could consider it to be too early.The wear of pe is hardly visible on the low-quality images reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
We have noticed on (b)(6) 2024 that the visual inspection reported in the follow-up 2 was not the updated one after the quality control analysis.Visual inspection performed by r&d project manager that update the previous one: the liner appeared damaged due to the presence of scratches, grooves and extraction screw hole drilled during revision surgery to extract the liner from the shell.A yellowed color was present in the entire inner surface and in the central band in the outer cone.From the visual analysis, there were no particular or evident signs other than a slight eccentric deformation of the inner socket; for these reasons, a qc analysis from in-depth scans will follow to try to reconstruct the current geometry and compare it to the design specifications.Update of (b)(6) 2024: the analysis run by the quality control department, with the aid of high-precision 3d coordinate measuring machines, did not evidence abnormal wear in any of the sections.Indeed, a minimum deformation was measured, ad it is fair to assume that the majority of this deviation from the nominal dimensions is due to creep, which does not affect the surroundings of the joint.Therefore, no anomaly has been found.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|