|
The reason for this revision surgery was confirmed by the representative as a two stage revision as a result glenoid bone grafting.In the latter part of 2016 the surgeon implanted (first stage) (b)(4) product and applied a bone graft.In 2017 the surgeon explanted the head implanted at stage 1 and added additional components (stage 2) to create a reverse shoulder system for the patient.The in-vivo length of patient service for the implant was 5.8 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 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 device history records (dhrs) revealed no discrepancies or issues with the manufacturing of this part.All critical dimensions, design criteria 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 as non-product related.The root cause for this event was the patient had a two stage surgery to add a bone graft and resolve shoulder issues.The scope of this investigation is limited without having the explanted parts available to (b)(4) for evaluation.Other conditions relating to this event could not be determined with confidence.Inventory containment is not required since there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|