|
EXACTECH, INC. OPTETRAK THREE PEG PATELLA 35MM; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
200-02-35 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Naturally Worn (2988); Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Osteolysis (2377); Aseptic loosening (4883)
|
| Date of Event |
10/18/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(d10) concomitant devices: 02-012-35-2011 - logic tibia ps mod insrt sz 2 11mm.02-010-01-0220 - logic femoral ps cem left sz 2.02-012-45-2020 - lgc tibial fit tray cem sz 2f / 2t.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.A review of complaint history was unable to be performed as the relevant device and event information was unknown.A definitive root cause was unable to be determined; however, may have resulted from prosthesis wear.Potential contributions of manufacturing, user, and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and images, radiographs, and complete product information were not provided.If any further information is obtained that would change or alter any information provided, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient underwent an initial total knee replacement on the left side.5 years following implantation, the patient experienced aseptic patella loosening and lysis around the patella button with displaced fragmentation of the superior pole of patella; and 9 months later, the patient had an arthroscopy and debridement with biopsy to left knee for polyethylene wear with evidence of osteolysis.Subsequently, the patient is again experiencing polyethylene wear with evidence of osteolysis.As a result, approximately 8 years after initial replacement, the patient underwent a left knee revision.No further impact to the patient was reported.No other information is available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional information.The following sections were updated: h3, h6, h11.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.A review of complaint history determined that no further action is required as no trends were identified.The reason for the revision reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear, patellar loosening, patellar fracture, or any combination of them.Potential contributions of manufacturing, user, and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and images, radiographs, and complete product information were not provided.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 corrected information.The following sections were corrected: d4 (udi), g4 the reason for the revision reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear, patellar loosening, patellar fracture, or any combination of them.Potential contributions of manufacturing, user, and patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and images, radiographs, and complete product information were not provided.Should additional relevant information be obtained, a follow-up mdr will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|