|
EXACTECH, INC. TRAPEZOID TIBIAL TRAY SZ 1F/1T, 2F/1T; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
204-04-21 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907); Naturally Worn (2988); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Synovitis (2094); Osteolysis (2377); Joint Laxity (4526); Metal Related Pathology (4530)
|
| Date of Event |
07/14/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D10: (b)(6), 230-03-02 - optetrak asy, cr cemented femoral, sz 2.(b)(6), 200-62-13 - cr tibial insert sz 2, 13mm, slope +.(b)(6), 200-02-35 - three peg patella 35mm.Multiple mdr reports were filed for this event, please see associated reports: (b)(4).The device will not be returned for analysis; however, an investigation of the reported event is in progress.Once the investigation is completed, a supplemental medwatch 3500a will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported via legal documentation that approximately 135 months after a right total knee replacement procedure, the patient underwent a revision procedure to address prosthesis wear polyethylene wear, osteolysis, aseptic loosening.Operative report notes the knee appeared to be ligamentous grossly loose as well as fairly significant polyethylene liner wear that i suspected had already worn completely through.It was obviously notable initially upon entering the joint that she had severe blackened synovitis due to the metal-on-metal articulation and complete polyethylene failure and catastrophic dislodgement.There was notable bone loss both on the medial and lateral femoral condyle that seemed to be uncontained.The tibial had a central defect as well as an uncontained defect on the lateral condyle.The patella appeared to be grossly intact with good tracking and was retained.The patient was revised to a competitor¿s devices.There were no apparent complications and no deviations in surgical plan.The patient was last known to be in stable condition following the procedure.No additional information is available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated: g3, h6.The following sections were corrected: h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, b, e.The reason for the revision reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear and loosening or due to inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.Additionally, the devices were implanted for over ten years prior to the reported failure(s).However, the reported prosthesis wear and loosening could not be confirmed and potential contributions of manufacturing, user, or patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and no product information, images, radiographs, or relevant clinical information was provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|