|
The reported even could not be confirmed, although the device was returned for evaluation.No supporting imaging or medical reports were available to substantiate the event or to establish whether the damage observed on the device was attributed to a device related failure or to external causes.The device inspection revealed the following a visual inspection of the returned device indicates evidence of significant wear and use.The polymer components are detached, and exhibit areas of material removal consistent with abrasion or scraping.The titanium components display widespread sur-face damage and discoloration, with an intact cement mantle.In contrast, the screw component shows minimal evidence of wear, except for localized flattening at the crests of the threads.The damage observed to the device is most likely due to explanation but without additional information, the cause of the damage cannot be definitively deter-mined.The damage to the implant was too extensive to perform a functional or dimensional inspection.However, during manufacturing, dimensional testing was performed and the device was manufactured to specifications.Based on investigation and the lack of information provided the root cause could not be determined.However, information from the complaint reporter states surgeon reports younger male rheumatoid in 50s and i think has been at gym etc.Per the device ifu, the patient having rheumatoid arthritis is a contraindication for this implant as well as failure to follow daily precautions that could impact the lifetime of the implant by engaging in gym related activities.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|