|
Review of the device history records indicate devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.There have been no similar events for the lot referenced.An evaluation of the device cannot be performed as the device was not returned to the manufacturer.Should additional information become available it will be reported in a supplemental report upon completion of the investigation.The following devices were also listed in this report: cat#; device name; lot#.702-04-54e, tridentii tritanium cluster54e, unknown trident ii 95296501a, 6721-0535, size 5 accolade ii 127 deg, 95207703, 6519-t-204, uni adaptor sleeve v40 ti, 94614901, 6519-1-040, delta un.Fem hd 40mm r40 16/18, 95998208.It cannot be determined which, if any of these devices may have caused or contributed to the patient's experience.
|
|
Reported event:
an event regarding pain involving a trident liner was reported.The event was not confirmed.Method & results:
-product evaluation and results: material analysis, visual, functional and dimensional inspections could not be performed as the device remains implanted.-clinician review: a review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated: no operative data or patient follow-up were provided for review.The patient did have a tha performed apparently with mako.The operative record was not provided for review.The x-rays showed djd of the left hip with likely osteonecrosis.The patient also had djd of the spine based on the x-rays.Post operative care record was not provided for review.The implants were noted.The patient complains of pain and was inquiring as to whether there was a recall.A recall was not noted or confirmed.Event confirmation: the patient¿s pain cannot be confirmed.A recall cannot be confirmed.A tha with an accolade ii stem and trident ii shell with 40 mm head can be confirmed.Use of a mako cannot be confirmed.Root cause: a root cause for the patient pain cannot be ascertained.A recall could not be confirmed."
-product history review: review of the product history records indicate the reported device was manufactured with no reported relevant discrepancies.-complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the lot referenced.Conclusions:
it was reported that the patient is experiencing pain.A review of the provided medical records by a clinical consultant indicated that "he patient¿s pain cannot be confirmed.A recall cannot be confirmed."[.]" a root cause for the patient pain cannot be ascertained." the patient also inquired if this device is part of a recall.Based on the device information it was confirmed that this device is not in scope of a recall.No further investigation for this event is possible at this time.If additional information become available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.Correction: a2.
|