• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING Back to Search Results
Catalog Number 74121150
Medical Device Problem Code Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
Health Effect - Clinical Code Joint Laxity (4526)
Date of Event 10/27/2022
Type of Reportable Event Serious Injury
Event or Problem Description
It was reported that, after a left bhr surgery performed on (b)(6) 2012 due to an avascular necrosis and severe pain, the patient experienced a loosening of the femoral component.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2022 in order to explant the femoral component and convert the bhr into a dual mobility acetabular arthroplasty.Micromotion along the femoral neck could be seen with the femoral component.The cup was noticed to be in a satisfactory position, so it was retained.No significant staining of the tissues were noticed.A cystic region was identified and curetted, this had a benign appearance.A dual mobility acetabular liner, a summit stem and a ceramic head from a competitor were implanted.The patient current health status is unknown.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Internal complaint reference (b)(4).
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
It was reported that, after a left bhr surgery due to an avascular necrosis and severe pain, the patient experienced a loosening of the femoral component.A revision surgery was performed in order to explant the femoral component and convert the bhr into a dual mobility acetabular arthroplasty.Micromotion along the femoral neck could be seen with the femoral component.The cup was noticed to be in a satisfactory position, so it was retained.No significant staining of the tissues were noticed.A cystic region was identified and curetted, this had a benign appearance.A competitor system was implanted.The patient current health status is unknown.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.Without a definitive batch number, a complete review of the historical complaints data cannot be performed for the alleged devices.A review of historical complaints data was performed using the part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects.Similar have been identified for the cup and head, and this failure will continue to be monitored via routine trending.As no device batch numbers were provided for investigation, manufacturing record review could not be performed.If more information is received, this investigation will be reopened.The review of the most recent ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.The alleged failure modes and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and the anticipated risk level is still adequate.No further actions are required at this time.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, no prior applicable escalation actions were identified.No further escalation actions are required.The available medical documents were reviewed.Based on the limited information provided the clinical root cause of the loosened femoral component cannot be confirmed.The patient impact beyond the reported revision could not be determined.Based on the information provided, further investigation of the reported complaint cannot be carried out and remains inconclusive.A definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
RESURFACING FEMORAL HEAD 50MM
Common Device Name
PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING
Manufacturer (Section D)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD
aurora house, spa park
leamington spa warwickshire CV31 3HL
UK  CV31 3HL
Manufacturer (Section G)
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD
aurora house, spa park
leamington spa warwickshire CV31 3HL
UK   CV31 3HL
Manufacturer Contact
holly topping
7000 west william cannon drive
austin, TX 78735
5123913905
MDR Report Key19851716
Report Number3005975929-2024-00125
Device Sequence Number6813032
Product Code NXT
UDI-Device Identifier03596010502797
UDI-Public03596010502797
Combination Product (Y/N)N
Initial Reporter CountryUS
PMA/510(K) Number
P040033
Number of Events Summarized1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Device Implanted Year2012
Device Explanted Year2022
Reporter Type Manufacturer
Report Source Health Professional,Company Representative
Initial Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date (Section B) 09/04/2024
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Operator of Device Health Professional
Device Catalogue Number74121150
Device Lot NumberUNKNOWN
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Type of Report(Section G)Thirty-Day
Initial Date Received by Manufacturer 07/08/2024
Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer09/03/2024
Initial Report FDA Received Date07/29/2024
Supplement Report FDA Received Date09/04/2024
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N) Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N) Yes
Is This a Single-Use Device that was
Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N)
No
Usage of Device Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event Required Intervention; Hospitalization;
Patient Age41 YR
Patient SexMale
-
-