|
The associated complaint device was not returned.The clinical/medical group concluded, the provided image of an x-ray pelvic overview, dated 3 days before the revision and 2 weeks after implantation, shows the mentioned calcar fracture.As no immediate post-operative x-rays is available for comparison, the subsidence cannot be further described.Information on the implantation and indication was not provided.Other than the patient age (90 years) and gender (female), no possible contributing factors to a peri-prosthetic fracture were indicated.No fall or specific event causing the fracture was reported.As the fracture occurred a short time after implantation, an intra-operative periprosthetic fracture could have also been unrecognized and simply propagated with progressive weight bearing during the post-operative period.A review of the production documentation for the corresponding products did not reveal any deviation from the standard manufacturing processes.A review of complaint history for the listed part revealed no prior complaints for the listed batch.Without the actual product involved, our investigation cannot proceed.If the device or new information is received in the future, this complaint can be re-opened.
|