| Catalog Number |
3092040 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Muscular Rigidity (1968); Synovitis (2094); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
08/17/2018
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2008, the patient had a right total knee arthroplasty and tibial bone graft to address end-stage osteoarthritis.Depuy components were implanted during this procedure.On (b)(6) 2018, the patient had a revision right total knee replacement tibial and femoral component to address failed right total knee replacement secondary to wear and synovitis.The indications for surgery included episodes of recurrent scar formation, which required early manipulation and excision.A repeat arthroscopic excision for scar tissue and then underside of the quad tendon and now with recurrent stiffness and swelling.Radiographs were reported to show a radiolucent line around the femoral component.During the procedure, the surgeon observed the polyethylene had both front side and backside wear.The sigma pfc knee had a relatively high degree of posterior slope on the tibial side and the femoral implant did not have gross motion, but was relatively easy to remove after breaking up the interfaces with minimal bone ingrowth into the ingrowth surfaces on the backside of the implant.It was noted that the backside of the implants have small areas of spot welding, but the remainder did not have bone ingrowth.The tibial tray was noted to be well fixed but was still removed.Patella remained in-situ.Competitor components were implanted during this procedure, including competitor cement.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.E3 initial reporter occupation: lawyer.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.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 joint reconstruction, or its employees hat the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthes joint reconstruction, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.According to the information received,¿ on (b)(6) 2008, the patient had a right total knee arthroplasty and tibial bone graft to address end-stage osteoarthritis.Depuy components were implanted during this procedure.On (b)(6) 2018, the patient had a revision right total knee replacement tibial and femoral component to address failed right total knee replacement secondary to wear and synovitis.The indications for surgery included episodes of recurrent scar formation, which required early manipulation and excision.A repeat arthroscopic excision for scar tissue and then underside of the quad tendon and now with recurrent stiffness and swelling.Radiographs were reported to show a radiolucent line around the femoral component.During the procedure, the surgeon observed the polyethylene had both front side and backside wear.The sigma pfc knee had a relatively high degree of posterior slope on the tibial side and the femoral implant did not have gross motion, but was relatively easy to remove after breaking up the interfaces with minimal bone ingrowth into the ingrowth surfaces on the backside of the implant.It was noted that the backside of the implants have small areas of spot welding, but the remainder did not have bone ingrowth.The tibial tray was noted to be well fixed, but was still removed.Patella remained in-situ.Competitor components were implanted during this procedure, including competitor cement.Doi: (b)(6) 2008, dor: (b)(6) 2018 right knee¿.Product description: - smartset hv bone cement 40g.Product code: - 3092040.Lot no: - 2585606.Quantity of manufactured: - (b)(4).Date of manufacturing: - mar-2008.Expiry date: - mar-2010.As part of our company quality system process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and distributed to approved specifications.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending as part of the post-market surveillance.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.Device history lot: product description: - smartset hv bone cement 40g.Product code: - 3092040.Lot no: - 2585606.Quantity of manufactured: - (b)(4).Date of manufacturing: - mar-2008.Expiry date: - mar-2010.Device history review: a manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device, and no non-conformances / manufacturing irregularities were identified.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|