|
The reason for this revision surgery was converting a hemi arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred 6.3 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 djo 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# 520-50-118, head, humeral, offset, which documents a non-conformance that out of (b)(4) quantity lot 1 item were rejected due to wrong laser mark.Rejected items were reworked with suitable operations.All items in the lot met the design, fit and function requirements and were accepted.The device was within its respective expiration dates 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 converting a hemi to reverse shoulder.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was the source or had a direct connection with the event.There are many factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical (b)(4): patient's age, excessive range-of-motion, joint laxity, patient bone deterioration, patient activities or trauma.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|