The concomitant part was reported as the main part number on the initial medical device report.Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was a worn poly bushing.The actual length of patient in-vivo service for this product is unknown as the original surgery date was not provided or could be established.The complaint, however: does indicate the implants may have been in use as much as seven years.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 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 record (dhr) was not conducted since a lot number was not provided or determined during the complaint evaluation.A search of the device investigation produced no anomalies or evidence of a product issue.Multiple searches of the djo surgical records and patient database revealed no additional information concerning this event.Zimmer-biomet was contacted for additional information through an invoice search and reported they have no additional information to report for this evaluation.This event is deemed to be non-product related.The root cause for poly bushing wear was not reported.The surgeon reported no issues associated with the explanted product.The scope of this investigation is limited without having the parts available to djo surgical for evaluation.Other conditions, root cause, 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.
|