The reason for this revision surgery was instability.The actual length of in-vivo patient service for this product is unknown as the original surgery date was not provided or could be established.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.There are no reported pre-existing patient health conditions.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 record (dhr) was not conducted since a lot number was not provided or determined during the complaint evaluation.A search of the device investigation produced no anomalies or evidence of a product issue.Multiple searches of the (b)(4) records and patient database revealed no additional information concerning this event.The part number is unconfirmed.This complaint will be closed with the lot unknown pending receipt of additional information.Should additional information become available concerning this complaint, the complaint will be re-opened and a further review shall be conducted.This complaint is deemed to be non-product related.The complaint states the patient was unstable; the root cause for the instability was not reported.No other conditions relating to this event could be determined with confidence.The surgeon reported no issues associated with the explanted product.The complaint investigation is limited in scope since the part associated with this investigation was not returned to (b)(4) for evaluation.Inventory containment is not required since there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|