The reason for this revision surgery was due to the patient having a polyethylene failure.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.The complaint does state the implant may have been in-vivo for approximately 5 years.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 has not been made available to djo surgical 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.The implant in-vivo service length is unknown without an original surgery date.Multiple searches of the djo surgical records by surgeon and patient database revealed no additional information concerning this event.No additional information was obtained from the agent to assist in the event identification.This complaint is deemed to be non-product related.The complaint states the patient had a polyethylene failure to the original implant.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 djo surgical for evaluation.Inventory containment is not required since there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|