|
EXACTECH, INC. EQUINOXE CAGE GLENOID MEDIUM, BETA; PROSTHESIS, SHOULDER, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/POLYMER CEMENTED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
314-13-13 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Pain (1994)
|
| Date of Event |
04/22/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient underwent an initial anatomic shoulder replacement of their right side.Subsequently, the patient reported experiencing pain.As a result, the patient underwent a right shoulder revision on approximately 5 years and 10 months after initial replacement.It was noted that the poly component was worn.No further patient impact reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D10: (b)(6), 300-01-13 - equinoxe, humeral stem primary, press fit 13mm.(b)(6), 300-10-45 - equinoxe replicator plate 4.5mm o/s.(b)(6), 300-20-02 - equinox square torque define screw drive kit.(b)(6), 310-01-47 - equinoxe, humeral head short, 47mm (beta).Customer has indicated that the product is in process of being returned for investigation.Once the investigation has been completed, a follow-up mdr will be submitted.Should additional relevant information be obtained, a follow-up mdr will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional information.The following sections were updated: d9, h3, h6 - component code, type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions and h11 the complaint device was evaluated, and the reported event was confirmed.The evaluation identified discoloration that appears consistent with sub-surface damage.There appears to be scratches on the articular surface that likely resulted from contact with surgical tools during removal.The glenoid component was returned with two detached metal pegs¿one that was separated cleanly from the polyethylene peg likely during the extraction process, and one that retained the polyethylene peg and fractured from the glenoid.There also appears to be damage on the superior portion of the backside of the glenoid.Based on the fracture surface of the polyethylene and the damage observed, it appears that the peripheral peg likely fractured prior to the revision surgery and was contacting the backside of the glenoid component.However, this cannot be confirmed because serial radiographs were not provided.The center cage was not returned with the glenoid.Based on the condition of the remaining polyethylene post, it is likely that the center cage was removed intentionally during the revision surgery.However, this cannot be confirmed from the information provided.All other aspects of the device appear unremarkable.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, the revision reported was likely the result of prosthesis wear, prosthesis fracture, and/or inclusion of the polyethylene component in the packaging recall.Potential contributions from user or patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed because relevant clinical information was not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|