|
The reported event could not be confirmed, since the device was not returned for evaluation, and no other evidence was provided.The device inspection was not possible as the product was not returned for investigation.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the catalog number and lot number were not communicated.However, failure of total ankle replacement tar over time is a known complication.In case of a planned revision procedure, a medical opinion aiming to determine the root cause of the failure is part of the internal investigation process.Sufficient radiological and clinical information must be provided to enable a meaningful clinical assessment and to identify possible causes of failure.In cases where a ct scan is the only available clinical source, this assessment is limited.No conclusive statement can be provided, because key clinical information e.G.Clinical status, exact symptoms and range of motion of the patient, assessment of the treating physician is missing.The root causes of radiographic findings such as radiolucent areas and bone cysts are often complex and multifactorial and cannot be determined scientifically without this decisive evidence.Due to these limitations, we are unable in such cases to provide statements about the patient, the procedure and or the device in relation to cause of the failure.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If the device is returned or any further information is provided, the investigation report will be reassessed.
|