|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. GII PS HI FLEX ISRT SZ 3-4 9; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
71421508 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Positioning Failure (1158)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
08/25/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).This complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a product problem associated with a smith+nephew device.The reported problem relates 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 conservatively 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 during tka surgery, the tibial and femoral prostheses were coated with bone cement and placed in the usual manner.A trial insert was then used.After the bone cement had set, anterior tibial dislocation was performed to prepare for the insertion of the gii ps hi flex isrt sz 3-4 9, it was placed into the tibial tray slot and tapped to lock it in place.However, during the repositioning of the femoral prosthesis, the gii ps hi flex isrt sz 3-4 9 dislodged, indicating a failure in the locking mechanism.Subsequent attempts to reposition the insert failed to secure it onto the tibial prosthesis.The procedure was completed after a delay greater than 30 minutes using a s+n back-up device.No injury was reported as a consequence of this issue.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation.However, the photographs were reviewed and revealed that a slight deformation on the edges of the device was able to be detected.Based on the information provided, the unsatisfactory experience could be confirmed.A review of the production order did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed part number over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.According with inspection drawing, the inspection includes the verification of measurements of the locking mechanisms.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include surgical technique used or user/procedural variance.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The associated device was returned and evaluated.The visual inspection revealed that the device returned with slight deformations at the edges, scuffing and scratching, more than likely from attempt of insertion.No further testing can be conducted since there is damage hindering inspection/evaluation.Plastic is easily distorted when attempting to implant, especially when the mating surface that is rigid and harder than the plastic (e.G.Titanium, cocr, etc.).Surface finish damage (e.G.Dings, scratches, scuffs, rubs, etc.) and critical feature distortion (e.G.Warping, twisting, rupturing, etc.) are sufficient to alter the measurement(s) during evaluation.For this reason, no dimensional analysis will be conducted.If additional complaints for this batch are submitted, this file will be reviewed for trending purposes.A review of the production order did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed part number over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.According with inspection drawing, the inspection includes the verification of measurements of the locking mechanisms.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include size selected or insertion technique.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|