|
See d3, d4 expiration date, g1, h4 and h11.The reason for this revision surgery, the agent reported "(i & d washout for post op infection, removable implants were replaced)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 17 days 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 an ncmr#51980 associated with the concomitant part # 520-46-024, head, humeral, neutral, 46-24 which document that out of 20 parts lot, 2 parts were rejected due to multiple scratches on the a area.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and retouched via spar after proper justification.Second, there was an ncmr#52117 associated with the same part, which document that out of 20 parts lot, 1 part was rejected due to 2000.2194 nicks can be felt withfg587.Rough surface finish with 2 nicks around rim.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and retouched via spar after proper justification.Third, there was an ncmr#52352 associated with the same part, which document that out of 20 parts lot, 2 parts were rejected due to scratches on polish area.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and retouched via spar after proper justification.All other items in the respective lots 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.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.Due to the short time between the original surgery and the revision, it is possible that the infection was acquired in the hospital (nosocomial).It is also possible that the patient was not compliant with post-surgical instructions.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an infection that are outside the control of djo surgical.
|