|
Batch review performed on 31 july 2024.Lot 2308190: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 18-july-2023.Expiration date: 2028-06-26.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been sold without any similar reported event during the period of review.Visual inspection performed by r&d project manager.During the analysis looking at the stem body an opaque white film is visible on approximately whole of the stem length.It is assumable that these are ha residuals due to the few days of implantation.Not absorption of ha from the stem body can indicate that metabolic activity wasn't taking place and that, presumably, not adequate bone contact was achieved at the time of surgery.Some signs of minor damage and scratches are present on the neck of the explanted stem, which is likely due to the revision surgery and not relevant to the reported issue.Based on the analysis completed and information available, it is not possible to identify a root cause of the stem loosening reported.Clinical evaluation performed by medical affiars director a revision surgery was performed ten months after the primary impantation of a tha.The reported reason for the revison was stem subsidence.It was also reported that the surgeon identified a fracture line on the femur.We have no information about the clinical status of the patient or any history of trauma.Pre-revision x-ray images confirm the subsidence of the stem, but no fracture lines are clearly visible.However, in the lateral projection a periosteal reaction is noticeable, which could indicate a previous fracture in the process of healing.Stem subsidence after a tha is a known complication described in the literature.In this early failure, the lack of ossointegration of the stem, combined with poor bone quality and a possibly low primay stability, may have contributed to the complication.The possible fracture line described is likely a consequence of this stem subsidence.There is no reason to suspect a defective or faulty device.
|