|
The agent reported, "patient had primary surgery with dr.(b)(6) in (b)(6) patient subsequently dislocated and dr.(b)(6) revised to empowr dual mobility.Patient next ended up with dr.(b)(6).At (b)(6) with complaints of pain and swelling, and self-reported metal allergy.Labs found elevated cobalt levels, so p elected to revise to a zb g7 cup with offset liner, and a regular biolox ceramic head w/ ti sleeve.Female 58." the previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 4 months, 16 days apart.Item number: 952-28-38d, item description: empowr acetabular, dual mobility, poly bearing, id28, od38, lot number: 2223a1141, part revision: a, product type: hip, manufacture date: 11-jul-2025, expiration date: 08-jul-2030.This evaluation is limited in scope as the item(s) associated with this investigation was not returned to djo surgical - austin for examination.The surgery was completed as intended and without incident and no delay.If additional information regarding the reported event is submitted at a future date, this investigation will be re-evaluated.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.Except for a metal allergy.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate that the reported device(s) was defective.The surgeon performed this procedure to remedy the patient's condition.No further action is deemed necessary.Root cause: "the root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery performed due to a biologic/clinical reaction to metal present in metallic implant components.This represents an idiosyncratic patient allergy, not a deficiency in device design, manufacture, or performance.All removed components were functioning as intended, and no evidence indicated a material defect, wear abnormality, or failure." containment: inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.The revision surgery was completed successfully.Device history records review: a review of the device history record(s) shows that the reported component(s) used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements at the time of release for use.There were no nonconforming material reports associated with the product(s) that may have contributed to the reported event.The device(s) was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Complaint history: customer complaint history of the reported device(s) showed no present trends or ongoing issues that need review.
|