|
Batch review performed on 20 november 2024: lot 132587: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 02-sep-2013.Expiration date: 2018-07-31.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, all items of the same lot have been sold with no similar reported events during the period of review.Additional component involved: stem: amistem h 01.18.136 ha coated std stem size 6 (k093944) lot 132149: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 05-aug-2013.Expiration date: 2018-06-30.No anomalies found related to the problem.To date, all items of the same lot have been sold with no similar reported events during the period of review.Visual inspection: stem: looking at the stem body an opaque white film is visible on approximately proximal half of the stem length.It seems this is ha residual.Absorption of ha from the stem body can indicate that metabolic activity was taking place and that, presumably, 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.A potential unreported periprosthetic fracture may have contributed to the failure mechanism.Cup: from the received parts, no particular signs were noticed.The polyethylene liner appeared to be yellowed in the inner sphere, normally due to lipidic absorption, while the cup did show some fibrotic tissue present in the external dome, but no other particular signs were present.From the information and devices it is not possible to determine the route cause of the event.Clinical evaluation: a revision surgery was performed approximately 10 years afer the implantation of a tha, due to loosening of both the stem and the cup.The available x-ray image reveals a bone discontinuity in the subtrochanteric region, with a profile suggestive of pseudoarthrosis.Additionally, there are signs of bone alteration and rarefaction in the proximal femur, while the distal portion of the stem appears to be well-fitted in the femoral diaphysis.The pictures of the retrieved stem show resorption of the ha coating in the distal portion, which aligns also with the x-ray suggestions of osseointegration, whereas the ha coating is still present in the proximal portion.This suggests that an early fracture hindered the proximal part of the stem from achieving sufficient bone contact, and as a result, the ha coating was not exposed to the metabolic activity necessary for its resorption, which typically occurs within a few months post-implantation.The acetabular component also shows signs of bone remodeling without evidence of clear radiolucency from this specific x-ray projection.Additionally, the cup appears to be anteverted and protruding laterally, possibly due to insufficient reaming of the original acetabulum during the primary surgery.Conclusions: based on the information available no definitive root cause can be established, while there is no indication that any potential issue with the device may have caused or contributed to the event, and the device history record review does not indicate any potential manufacturing related issue.
|