|
The reason for this revision surgery was to fix a patient's ruptured extensor mechanism.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 4 years and 10 months apart.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the event.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.Initial or prolonged hospitalization was required.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 component 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.The root cause of this complaint was to fix a patient's ruptured extensor mechanism.There are multiple factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical are an unbalanced joint, inadequate soft tissue support, excessive load or patient activities.Agent has mentioned that the event was not due to the djo product and it seems that event may occurred due to trauma or patient non-compliance with medical instructions.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities 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.
|