|
The reason for this revision surgery was pain.The in-vivo length of patient service for the implant was 11.3 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 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 of this part.All critical dimensions and specifications in effect at the time the part was manufactured were met.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 the pain was not reported.The complaint states the surgeon believed a poly exchange would remedy the patient's condition.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.
|