|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: 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.
|
|
It was reported that, after a revision thr surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2001, a second revision hip replacement surgery was performed to the patient on (b)(6) 2025 due to an infected joint.Only the ref xlpe 28 20 deg 70-76 k was explanted, the rest of the implants were retained.The current health status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, infection is a known risk of any surgery, and in this case, the infection occurred 24 years after the implant was placed, likely due to external factors.It can't be concluded that the infection was caused by a malfunction or failure of the implant.The impact on the patient included a dair procedure with an xlpe liner exchange, followed by another revision surgery 18 days later.No additional information was provided.Device batch number was not provided, thus, an evaluation of the manufacturing records could not be performed.A review of complaint history for the previous 12 months did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for total hip systems revealed that infection, both early, post-operative superficial and early, post-operative deep wound infection and late periprosthetic infection has been identified as a potential complications associated with total hip arthroplasty surgery, primary or revision.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.Additionally, since the device batch number was not provided, a review of the sterilization records could not be performed.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 post-operative healing issue, injury, patient condition and/or medical history.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the device or 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.H10: the other mentioned revision surgery was reported under report number: 1020279-2025-00457.Additional information: a1, a3.
|