|
Patient demographics (age at time of event, date of birth, gender, weight) were requested but not provided.No further patient information was provided at the time of this report or made available in response to follow-up communication.No additional adverse consequences have been reported from this event.This device is used for treatment.The device was requested for evaluation but was not returned, therefore the complainant's event could not be verified.The cause of the event could not be determined from the information available and without device evaluation.Device history record review revealed nothing relevant to this event.A likely cause of the event is as stated in the complaint, the patient fell.The directions for use states: post-operatively, until healing is complete the fixation provided by this device should be protected.The post-operative regimen prescribed by the physician should be strictly followed to avoid adverse stresses applied to the implant.The potential causes of this event are being communicated to the event reporter.If additional relevant information is received, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
|
A surgeon has reported to the sales reps that the patient has reported ongoing pain in the area of the implants post achilles speedbridge surgery that was performed on (b)(6) 2016.During the procedure the bone was prepared using the drill and drill guide provided in the achilees speedbridge kit.Follow-up investigation: patient began experiencing pain 2-4 months after the (b)(6) 2016 procedure.Lot number of the ar-8928bc-cp was 10052318.Mri revealed patchy bone edema around the anchor.Patient has also developed lymph edema.Patient reported a fall.Revision procedure was performed on (b)(6) 2017 and one distal row 4.75 bio-composite swivelock anchor, from the original achilles speedbridge construct, was replaced with a 5.5 bio-composite swivelock anchor.The (b)(6) 2017 revision procedure was reported to have been performed as a result of patient fall which occurred in (b)(6) 2017.The 4.75 mm swivelock was explanted during the (b)(6) 2017 procedure because it was discovered to have been 50% pulled out.The swivelock was not broken.The explanted swivelock anchor that was explanted was disposed of at time of procedure.Since the second (b)(6) 2017 procedure patient is reported to still be experiencing pain the area of the anchors.
|