|
The reason for this revision surgery was for increased stability.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred 7 months apart.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to an instability.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 implant device history records (dhr) shows that the reported components used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports associated with the product that may have contributed to knee instability the device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of use during the previous surgery.The customer complaint history of the reported device (s) showed no present trends or on-going issues that are in need of review.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to a patient's knee instability.There are multiple factors which may cause joint instability that are outside the control of djo surgical are incorrect implant selection, incorrect surgical technique or patient bone deterioration.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved that may have contributed to knee instability and hence a definitive root cause cannot be determined.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|