|
The reported event was confirmed based on the formal medical expert opinion.The device inspection was not possible as the product was not returned for investigation.A review of the operative notes by the medical expert stated:
¿the surgeon reported that a revision surgery was performed for a painful left shoulder, with no specific preoperative indication other than persistent pain.During the exploratory revision, the fixation and positioning of both the humeral component and the glenoid baseplate were evaluated.The surgeon confirmed that both components were well positioned and securely fixed to the bone.To fully assess the stability of the glenoid baseplate, the four peripheral screws were removed, which necessitated the placement of new screws upon reassembly.Based on intraoperative findings, the surgeon concluded that the likely cause of the patient¿s pain was an oversized glenosphere combined with impingement of the greater tuberosity against the undersurface of the acromion.Consequently, the glenosphere was downsized, and a portion of bone from the greater tuberosity was resected to alleviate impingement.¿
the device history record could not be reviewed because the affected device was not returned, and the lot number was not communicated.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the lot number was not communicated.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Based on the investigation and formal medical expert opinion, the root cause is attributed to a patient related issue leading to pain due to impingement.The pain was likely due to an oversized glenosphere and impingement of the greater tuberosity.If device is returned or any further information is provided, the investigation report will be reassessed.
|