|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to the swelling and pain.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred 2.1 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 a non-conforming material report (ncmr) # 23398 associated with the part 300-01-035, epik baseplate, size 35 which documents a nonconformance that out of 10 quantity lot 8 items were rejected due to out of tolerance in dimension.In that 2 items were scrapped and remaining 6 items were accepted with the justification of undersize condition of casting does not create a sharp edge.All items in the lot met the fit, design and functional requirements.The device 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 the swelling and pain.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 such as: infection, degenerated cartilage, patient activities, degenerative disease or trauma.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|