|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to a broken trunnion.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 4 years apart.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 (b)(4) 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 (ncmrs) associated with the product that may have contributed to the event.The device was within its expiration date at the time of use during the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported device showed no present trends or on-going issues that are in need of review.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was the source or had a direct connection with the event.There are multiple factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of (b)(4) are soft tissue impingement, excessive load, poor bone quality, patient activities and trauma.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event 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.
|