|
The agent reported "(fracture)".The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 38 days apart.This evaluation is limited in scope as the items associated with this investigation were not returned to djo surgical - austin for review.The surgery was completed as intended and without incident.If additional information regarding the reported event is submitted at a future date, this investigation will be re-evaluated.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were defective.The surgeon performed this procedure to remedy the patient's condition.No further action is deemed necessary.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.First, there was a nonconformance associated with the concomitant part # 342-12-704 empowr 3d kneetm ins,4r 12mm, ve, which documents that out of 20 parts lot, 3 items were rejected and scrapped during flow bench verification.Second, there was a nonconformance associated with the concomitant part # 352-04-104 djo empowr kneetm, universal bp, np 4r minus, which documents that out of 20 parts lot, 3 items were rejected and scrapped during assembly sterile.Third, there was an ncmr #72586 associated with the concomitant part #352-04-104 djo empowr kneetm, universal bp, np 4r minus, which documents that out of 20 parts lot, 7 items were rejected.6 items were rejected and scrapped due to ding sand scratches in tray area, 1 item was rejected and scrapped due to scratches on rim.Later, the rejected parts were reworked and accepted after proper justification.All other items in the lot were met with fit, form and function.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.The revision surgery was completed successfully.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to fracture.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.Due to short time between previous and revision surgery, it is possible that the event may have occurred due to lack of post-operative care, patient noncompliance with medical instructions or incorrect implant selection, patient activities or trauma.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical.
|