The reason for this revision surgery was poor range of motion; the surgeon performed a revision and implanted a thinner insert with a patella replacement.The length of the in-vivo service was 6.8 months.There is no information in this complaint about any patient injuries, activities, or accidents that may have contributed to the need for this revision surgery.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 djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records (dhrs) revealed no discrepancies or issues with the manufacturing history of this part.All parts were found to meet design and manufacturing specifications.No non-conforming material reports (ncmr's) were associated with this part.The product complaint report history was reviewed and no trends or on-going issues were deemed as present or in need of review.This event is deemed to be non-product related.The root cause for poor range of motion was not reported.The scope of this investigation is limited without having the parts available to djo surgical for evaluation.Other conditions relating to this event could not be determined with confidence.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|