|
It was reported that left hip revision surgery was performed due to metallosis and psuedotumour.Fluid in joint, foreign body reaction noted during revision.During the revision the bhr head was removed.The bhr cup remains implanted.As of today, device return and additional information has been requested for this complaint but has not become available.The device batch/lot details have not been received therefor no thorough manufacturing record review and assessment of the reported event can be performed.The available medical documents were reviewed.According to the provided revision report, there was fluid in the joint, erosion of the femoral neck, almost pseudotumor-like tissue, some foreign body reaction and metallosis.The components were described as well positioned and stable integrated.Review of the provided implantation and revision report did not reveal any inconsistencies related to the surgical technique that could explain the revision.Results from the mentioned pathological analysis were not provided.It was noted that use of a competitor's (stryker) dual mobility liner, (djo) femoral stem and (biolox) femoral head devices were implanted with the bhr cup at the time of revision.This activity was performed contrary to the instructions for use of for bhr implants which states under its important medical information, "do not mix components from other manufacturers.Without return of the actual devices or further information we cannot further investigate or confirm the details supplied in this complaint, and our investigation remains inconclusive.If the products or additional information become available in the future, this case will be reopened.No preventative or corrective action has been initiated as a result of this investigation.
|