| Catalog Number |
02.07.1202L |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Pain (1994)
|
| Date of Event |
08/13/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Batch review performed on 14 aug 2024.Lot 189124: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 07-feb-2019.Expiration date: 2024-01-27.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been sold with no similar reported event during the period of review.Clinical evaluation performed by medical affairs department.5 years after primary cemented tka, the tibial tray requires revision because of progressive subsidence in the posterior aspect.This is most likely due to bone subsidence, possibly related to insufficient coverage or more likely to progressive bone resorption - the image provided is not sufficient to determine a possible cause.No reason to suspect a faulty device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
At 4 years and 11 months from the primary, revision surgery due to posterior tibial tray subsidence.No reported problems with the contralateral side.The surgery was completed successfully.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection performed by r&d project manager.Revision surgery of a gmk sphere implant after around 5 years from primary implantation due to tibia subsidence.From visual inspection of the explanted components, we can't identify any anomalies relevant to the event.The medial posterior side of the tibial insert looks lightly worn out only, as expected after 5 years of implantation.We can note also the color of the tibial insert turned yellow in some portions.This is something that affects only the external surfaces of the insert and is not related to abnormal oxidation of the liner.No traces of residual cement can be observed on the distal plane of the tibial tray.The absence or lack of cement on explanted components it's something that can be observed in returned devices object of complaint, it's not a predictor of faulty devices.The present event is most likely due to bone subsidence, possibly related to insufficient coverage or more likely to progressive bone resorption.From visual inspection, there is no evidence to suspect that the event is related to a faulty device.Information reported in this follow up 1: piece returned on 26 sept 2024.Visual inspection.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|