|
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS LTD ACETABULAR CUP HAP SIZE 52/58; PROSTHESIS, HIP, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, METAL/METAL, RESURFACING
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
74122158 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Biocompatibility (2886)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Metal Related Pathology (4530)
|
| Date of Event |
10/20/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: this complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication related to a product problem with a smith+nephew device.The reported issue(s) relate to known inherent device and/or procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional investigative findings or information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, the plaintiff underwent a right metal-on-metal bhr performed on (b)(6) 2012 and a left bhr performed on an unspecified date, and after this the patient has been experiencing pain and high levels of chromium and cobalt.He has been diagnosed with cobalt poisoning due to his metal-on-metal hip replacement, which has also affected his other hip.A revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2024 due to concern of infection (but this has been ruled out).The cup and femoral head were explanted an replaced for competitor implants.After this, the patient suffered from 2 dislocations and an additional revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2024, in which the competitor devices were explanted and replaced for a dual mobility construct.The current health status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
D10 has been updated.As of today, the implanted devices, all of which were used in treatment have not been returned for evaluation.A review of the historical complaints data for the alleged devices was performed using batch numbers, part numbers and the reported failure modes to evaluate patterns of repeated failures or defects.Similar complaints have been identified for the cup.No other similar have been identified for the head.This failure will continue to be monitored via routine trending.In the absence of the actual devices, the production records were reviewed for the devices reportedly involved in this incident.All released devices involved met manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.The review of the product ifu found adequate warnings and precautions in relation to the alleged failure modes.A risk management review was performed.The alleged failure modes and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and the anticipated risk level is still adequate.No further actions are required at this time.A review of historic escalation actions related to the products and similar complaint events was performed.Following the review, no prior applicable escalation actions were identified.No further escalation actions are required.The available medical documents were reviewed.The right hip retroverted acetabular cup cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor to the elevated metal ions as the retroverted cup can lead to accelerated wear of the components and subsequently elevated metal ions.The clinical root cause of the recurrent dislocations cannot be confirmed.However, posterior capsule deformity, trauma, physical activities and/or a procedural variance (choice and position of the revised implants) cannot be ruled out as possible contributing factors to the dislocations and subsequent revision.A definitive root cause cannot be determined.Specific factors known to contribute to the alleged fault are excessive physical activity levels, unreasonable stress on replacement system, excessive patient weight, trauma to the joint replacement, loosening of components may increase production of wear particles and accelerate damage to the bone.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective and preventative actions is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|