|
Additional details received on 11 dec 2017: the patient had two luxations on (b)(6) 2017.From the examination made by the surgeon, no "criticity" related to the primary implants has been detected.Surgeons cannot give an explanation about the luxations; cup and stem remained in place, since they are well fixed, while the flat insert and the ceramic head have been replaced.With a hooded insert and another head.On 22 dec 2017 the medical affairs director made the following analysis: recurrent dislocation in cementless primary tha, reoperated after few weeks.The stem and cup are well fixed and therefore left in place, while the insert is replaced to a hooded one.The acetabular cup was implanted with very little anteversion, but the use of a hooded insert may solve the dislocation problem, probably helped by better tensioning of the soft tissues around the hip.No reason to suspect a malfunctioning device led to this adverse event.Batch review performed on 02 january 2018: (b)(4).On (b)(6) 2018 the r and d project manager checked the image of the explant commenting as following: from the explanted liner showed in the image it is not possible to determine the root cause of the event as it can be due to several factors not related to the device, as patient's anatomy or the situation of muscles and tendons.The choice of the surgeon to substitute the polyethylene component with a hooded version potentially prevents these types of risk.
|