|
EXACTECH, INC. OPTETRAK; PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
244-25-09 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Unstable (1667); Naturally Worn (2988)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Synovitis (2094); Discomfort (2330); Osteolysis (2377); Ambulation or Postural Difficulties (2544); Joint Laxity (4526); Swelling/ Edema (4577); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581)
|
| Date of Event |
06/22/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported via a legal notification, that a patient, who had a left tka system with a 5 hi-flex femur, 5 tibia, 35mm patella, all cemented and a 9mm poly spacer, underwent a revision procedure approximately 4 years 6 months post the initial procedure.The patient presented for evaluation with complaints of mechanical complications and chronic pain.The patient was revised due to implant loosening, (femoral loosening, debonded from cement in one gentle tap), bone loss and significant synovitis.The were revised to a competitor¿s devices.Following the revision surgery, the plaintiff continues to be limited in his activities of daily living, and experiences daily pain and discomfort in his left knee which limits his activities and impacts his quality of life.No further information.This is 1 of 2 events for this patient.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported event was unable to be confirmed due to limited information received from the customer.No device was returned for evaluation; further, photographs and/or radiograph images were not provided for review.A review of complaint history determined that no further action is required as no trends were identified.The reason for the reported cannot be confirmed from the information provided but may be the result of prosthesis wear, instability and debonding or due to inclusion of the polyethylene in the packaging recall.A contributing factor to the reported wear on the tibial insert may have been due to the revised tibial insert having been packaged in a non-conforming bag for five years.However, the reported prosthesis wear, instability and debonding cannot be confirmed and potential contributions of user, or patient-related considerations to the event could not be assessed as the devices were not available for evaluation and no images or radiographs were provided.Should additional relevant information be obtained, a follow-up mdr will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|