|
Sade 17k001 - patient # (b)(6).Allegedly, subject (b)(6) had a revision surgery at michigan medicine by dr.Hallstrom on (b)(6) 2022.The office note on (b)(6) 2022 states "work up for infection was negative.Implant may be loose.Due to her symptoms, worsening pain, and limited function, she is a candidate for revision of her knee replacement." per note, subject wanted to proceed with revision surgery.
|
|
The alleged complaint could not be confirmed.Review of the complaint, efsrp4pl lot: 1759652, eis5s12l, lot: 03010983331757543, etplb5sl lot: 1815560, etpk1556 lot: 1780844, does not reveal any evidence of failure involving these implants.These implants were not returned for investigation, nor were any pictures or other medical documentation provided to assist with the investigation.These implants were implanted for approximately 24 months in the 65 yo female patient before a revision surgery was required.The patient began to experience pain and limited function approximately 2 months prior to the revision surgery.The incident description suggests that the implants may be loose.While this is possible, mpo is unable to confirm this failure without additional information.The mpo knee systems package insert (150806-3) lists?) inadequate range of motion due to improper selection or positioning of components, periarticular calcification, flexion contracture? and? pain? as potential adverse effects.This package insert also states? periodic, long-term follow-up is recommended to monitor the position and state of the prosthetic components, as well as the condition of the adjoining bone.Periodic postoperative x-rays are recommended for close comparison with early post op conditions to detect long term evidence of changes in position, loosening, bending, or cracking of components? these implant lots were manufactured in 2018 (eis5s12l, efsrp4pl, etpk1556) and 2019 (etplb5sl).Review of the design history records (dhr) for the subject manufacturing lots indicate that these implants were manufactured to specification.There are no trends for any of these implants and failures.It cannot be concluded what the level of contribution, if any, that the product had to the complaint.No further evaluations can be made without return of the product or receipt of other clinical information.
|