|
EXACTECH, INC. NV CROWN CUP CLSTR HOLE 60MM GROUP 4; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/POLYMER, CEMENTED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
180-01-60 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Joint Dislocation (2374); Osteolysis (2377)
|
| Date of Event |
02/17/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Should additional relevant information be obtained, a follow-up mdr will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a male patient, who had hip procedure, underwent a revision procedure approximately 10 years 4 months post the initial procedure.As part of the manufacturer's recall, the patient presented for a follow-up in 2023.X-rays and ct scans revealed moderate decentration of the prosthetic head and osteolysis in the acetabulum, indicating inlay wear.Due to the patient's comorbidities and the minimal signs of wear, a watchful waiting approach with regular follow-up visits was agreed upon.When symptoms suddenly worsened significantly at the end of 2024, a further follow-up visit was conducted, which revealed complete dislocation of the cup.On (b)(6) 2025, the revision surgery was performed, including replacement of the entire cup (implantation of a revision cup with iliac peg from a competitor.No further information.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional and/or corrected information.The following sections were updated/corrected: d1, h6.Mdr section codes updated/corrected: a, e.The revision reported was likely the result of prosthesis wear and acetabular loosening and subsequent migration of the cup.The wear may have been due to a combination of risk factors: such as use error, implant positioning, implant size selection, and patient factors (fitness for surgery, biomechanics, activity level and local tissue oxidation potential).The reason for the loosening cannot be confirmed, but may be related to the patient's bone quality and the reported osteolysis.However, this cannot be confirmed and the contributions of each to the sequence of events cannot be determined based on the information provided as no images, radiographs, or devices were available for review.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay corrected/additional information.The following sections were correct: d10, h6 2374, 4627, 4756 no longer applies, the following sections were updated: d4, g4 510k, h3, h4, h6.The reported event was unable to be confirmed due to limited information received from the customer.No device was returned for evaluation; further, photographs and/or radiograph images were not provided for review.Operative notes and/or medical records were not provided for review of usage/ technique.A review of complaint history determined that no further action is required as no trends were identified.A definitive root cause was unable to be determined; however, may have resulted from a combination of risk factors such as use error, implant positioning, implant size selection, and patient factors (fitness for surgery, biomechanics, activity level and local tissue oxidation potential).Additional reasons for revision may be acetabular loosening, subsequent migration and being implanted for more than 10 years.However, this cannot be confirmed from the reported information and the devices were not available for evaluation.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|