(b)(4).The reason for this revision surgery was due to the orginal ulna component becoming loose.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 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.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.The complaint states the original ulna component loosened and this revision was necessary to correct the patient's condition.With the limited information, there was no indication that the reported device was the source or had a direct connection with this event.Inventory containment is not required since there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|