|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).This complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication reported that includes reference to the use of a smith+nephew product without evidence about a specific product problem.The reported complication relates to known inherent procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to confirm a relationship between the reported event and the device or identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.Note: a separted report under internal complaint reference (b)(4) is being sent to cover the issue with the insert implant.
|
|
It was reported that, after tka surgery had been performed on (b)(6) 2017, the patient experienced the gns ii resurf pat 35 mm patella component had loosened from the cement implant interface and the gii dished ins sz 7-8 9 mm poly was slightly deformed on the anterior edge, but no significant signs of wear.This adverse event was solved by revision surgery on (b)(6) 2024, in which the gii dished ins sz 7-8 9 mm and the gns ii resurf pat 35 mm were explanted.Current health status of patient is unknown.No further complications were reported.
|
|
Given the nature of the alleged incident, the device could not be returned for evaluation.However, the photographs were reviewed and revealed that the patella is deformed on the edge, however through this evaluation no insight regarding the failure mode or root cause of the reported adverse event can be provided.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that the provided electronic photocopied x-rays appear to support the complaint; however, do not provide further insight into the reported event.It is unknown what symptoms, if any, the patient experienced or if suffered any trauma to the knee prior to seeking medical attention.The reported patella loosening appears to have led to the revision; however, the clinical root cause of the ¿component has loosened from the cement implant interface¿ cannot be determined based on the limited information provided.It is unknown if the patient experienced trauma prior to the event; however, it is suspect as the reported ¿slight¿ deformation of the anterior edge of the insert could have also potentially resulted secondary to trauma, but this cannot be definitively concluded.The patient impact is determined to be the patellar component loosening along with ¿slight¿ deformation of the anterior edge of the insert resulting in revision of both patella and insert components.A transient restorative phase would be anticipated.A review of the production order did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed part number over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the instructions for use documents for knee systems revealed that looseness of components has been identified in possible adverse effects section as a result from trauma, improper implant selection, improper implant positioning, improper fixation, and/or migration of the components.Muscle and fibrous tissue laxity can also contribute to these conditions.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include abnormal motion over time, bone degeneration, osteolysis, injury, friction and/or joint tightness.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|