|
Product complaint #: (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy synthes, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.Additional narrative: h6: photo investigation summary: the product was not returned to j&j medtech orthopaedics; however, photos were provided for review.The photo investigation revealed nothing indicative of a device nonconformance.As the device was not returned, an as-received condition could not be assessed, and a dimensional inspection and document/specification review were not completed.The overall complaint was not confirmed as the observed condition of the lcs complete fem por r std would have not contributed to the reported adverse event.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.There is no indication that a design or manufacturing issue has caused the reported complaint condition.As part of j&j medtech orthopaedics quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.Device history lot: the product investigation found no evidence suspecting an error in the manufacturing or material that would be a contributing factor in the reported allegation(s).A manufacturing records evaluation (mre) was not performed.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
It was reported that patient had their lcs primary implanted for medial compartment arthritis.Initial surgery was uneventful but patient underwent manipulation under anaesthesia 12 weeks post op when knee motion then increased 73-120 degrees.This was then revised in 2021 due to mid flexion instability.The revision just involved swapping the poly to 5mm thicker (up to 17.5 mm poly).Within 3 weeks after this she was back to normal.Patient was revised again on (b)(6) 2025, as patient was experiencing more instability which has caused patient to fall many times.Patient reached a point where patient didn't tend to flex the right knee and walks with a stiffer knee gait presumably due to the degree of instability.There were no indications of loosening.This report captures second revision procedure performed on (b)(6) 2025, due to instability while related complaint (b)(4) captures the first revision for tibial insert only which was performed in 2021.
|