|
The reason for this revision surgery was the patient presented pain.The in-vivo length of patient service for the implant was 9.3 years.The healthcare professional indicated there was a significant adverse event to the patient.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 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.This event is deemed to be non-product related.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to laxity and wear.There are multiple factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical are patient activities, degenerative bone, excessive weight or trauma.The complaint does state that the event occurred over 9 years post-operative and it seems that the poly insert might have eroded during this period of usage.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.
|