Model Number N/A |
Device Problems
Break (1069); Fracture (1260)
|
Patient Problems
Pain (1994); Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165); No Information (3190)
|
Event Date 11/03/2014 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Current information is insufficient to permit a conclusion as to the cause of the event.Review of device history records show that lot released with no recorded anomaly or deviation.There are warnings in the package insert that state that this type of event can occur: "intraoperative or postoperative bone fracture and/or postoperative pain." "fatigue fracture of component can occur as a result of loss of fixation, strenuous activity, malalignment, trauma, non-union, or excessive weight.".
|
|
Event Description
|
Legal counsel for patient reported that patient underwent total reverse shoulder arthroplasty and a subsequent revision procedure on (b)(6) 2014 due to patient allegations of pain and fractured screw.Patient's legal counsel further reported that a portion of the fractured screw allegedly remains in the patient.A review of invoice history revealed that the initial procedure took place on (b)(6) 2012 and confirmed the revision surgery date.This report is based on allegations set forth in plaintiff¿s complaint and the allegations contained therein are unverified.Additional information provided in patient medical records indicates that the revision procedure was performed due to glenoid loosening as a result of a fractured central screw in the baseplate.Medical records further indicate that all components except the humeral stem were removed and replaced.There is no indication in the revision operative report that any portion of the fractured screw was left in the patient.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This follow-up report is being filed to relay additional information, which was unknown at the time of the initial medwatch.This report is number 1 of 9 mdr's filed for the same event (reference 1825034-2015-01365-2 / 2015-00568 / 2015-00571 / 2015-00572 / 2015-00573 / 2015-00574 / 2015-00575 / 2015-00576 / 2015-00577).Not returned by attorney.
|
|
Event Description
|
Legal counsel for patient reported that patient underwent total reverse shoulder arthroplasty and a subsequent revision procedure on (b)(6) 2014 due to patient allegations of pain and fractured screw.Patient's legal counsel further reported that a portion of the fractured screw allegedly remains in the patient.A review of invoice history revealed that the initial procedure took place on (b)(6) 2012 and confirmed the revision surgery date.This report is based on allegations set forth in plaintiff¿s complaint and the allegations contained therein are unverified.Additional information provided in patient medical records indicates that the revision procedure was performed due to glenoid loosening as a result of a fractured central screw in the baseplate.Medical records further indicate that all components except the humeral stem were removed and replaced.There is no indication in the revision operative report that any portion of the fractured screw was left in the patient.Additional information received from patient's legal counsel reported that on (b)(6) 2014, patient experienced gradual onset of pain reported and x-ray indicated that the central screw had fractured and the baseplate had shifted.It was further reported that on (b)(6) 2015, patient underwent an aspiration procedure due to irritated swollen area.On (b)(6) 2015, the surgical site burst open and wept a discolored fluid during therapy session.Subsequently, patient underwent an irrigation and debridement procedure on (b)(6) 2015.A culture taken confirmed bacterial infection.Patient was revised again on (b)(6) 2015 due to deep infection.During the procedure, the patients shoulder was fused with cement spacers.On (b)(6) 2015 patient was taken to the hospital for an allergic reaction to the coating on the spacers.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|