|
The alleged complaint could not be confirmed.Review of the complaint, ppw00144 lot unk and ppw39110 lot 1621660, does not reveal any evidence of failure involving these implants.Ppw00144 was previously investigated in 2022, but the incident was reopened after new information was received.These implants were not returned for investigation, nor were any pictures or supplemental medical documentation provided to assist in the compliant.This patient was revised approximately 58 months after the primary operation due to alleged fracture of the stem extension component.It is unknown when ppw00144 was manufactured, or if it was manufactured to specification due to the unknown lot number.Ppw39100 was manufactured in 2016.Review of the design history record (dhr) for the subject manufacturing lot indicates that this implant was manufactured to specification.There are no trends for failure with either implant.Despite additional information being provided, no conclusions can be made regarding the level of contribution, if any, that these implants had to the complaint.These stem extensions are typically implanted during complicated use cases, such as revision cases that involve patients with substantial bone loss and/or deformities.Consequently, issues with bone support around the prosthesis may occur and could contribute to implant failure such as loosening and fracture.The current microport hip systems package insert (150803-9) lists "fatigue fracture of the prosthetic component can occur as a result of trauma, strenuous activity, improper alignment, incomplete implant seating, duration of service, loss of fixation, non-union, or excessive weight" as possible adverse effects of total hip arthroplasty.
|