|
On (b)(6) 2017 the patient match department reported the following investigation.Here is our comparison between the implanted femoral component and the validated planning: · the implanted size is the validated one.· the component has been implanted with slightly more flexum.Here is our comparison between the implanted tibia component and the validated.Planning: ·the implanted size is the validated one.·the entity of the cut is slightly lower than the planned 9.0 mm cut.·the component has been given slightly more slope than the planned 3.0°.·the component has been implanted with a slight residual valgus, whilst no residual deformity has been planned.Our analysis of the myknee process of this case found no deviations from the standard procedures.Each step has been performed correctly.Clinical evaluation performed by medical affairs on 22 december 2017: complete revision of cemented primary tkr after 1,5 years.The short-film radiograph supplied does not allow to evaluate alignment of the prosthesis in this valgus knee, which is per se a more challenging case.Some areas of radiolucency are visible both in the distal femur and proximal tibia, but their relation with reported pain cannot be demonstrated.The causes for this adverse event remain undetermined after clinical investigation with the elements at hand.Batch review performed on 29 december 2017 lot 160133: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 23 february 2016.Expiration date: 2021-01-26 no anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any similar reported event.Gmk-sphere tibial tray fixed cemented # 3 l reference 02.07.1203l (k090988) lot.154002: (b)(4) items manufactured and released on 13 oct 2015.Expiration date: 2020-09-28 no anomalies found related to the problem.To date, (b)(4) items of the same lot have been already sold without any similar reported event.
|