The reason for this revision surgery was the patient fell and tore her subscap.The in-vivo length of patient service for the implant was 5.9 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 the subscap tear.Agent has clearly mentioned that the patient fell and tearing her subscap, it seems that the event may possibly occurred due to trauma, patient noncompliance with medical instructions or patient activities.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient 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.
|