|
The reason for this revision surgery was instability.The length of in vivo service was10.4 months.The healthcare professional indicated there was a significant adverse event to the patient.There was no delay in surgery and another suitable device was available for use.The revision surgery was completed as intended.The device was disposed of at the hospital and not made available to (b)(4) for examination.A review of the device history records showed no non-conforming material reports associated with this product.A review of the product complaint report history showed there have been 5 prior complaints reported against this part number; summary of investigations: 1 trauma, 1 pain, 3 looseness.This is the first complaint against this lot number.The root cause of the knee instability was reported as a fall.The surgeon reported no issues associated with the explanted product.No other conditions relating to this event could be determined with confidence.This investigation produced no indications or suggestions of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|