|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to a periprosthetic fracture.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred 5.3 years apart.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 (b)(6) surgical for examination.A review of the implant device history records (dhr) shows that the reported components used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a non-conforming material report (ncmr# (b)(4)) associated with the part 470-01-135 (lot-565c1017) listed in the complaint.It documents nonconformance of 15 parts to failure code d7-parts have a bump on the stem about one inch below the porous coating, rework steps were added, 15 parts were accepted after rework.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and 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.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to a periprosthetic fracture.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was defective.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside of the control of (b)(6) surgical.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|