Correction: through the process of investigation it was discovered that the subject device for this event is an unknown tibial baseplate and not the tibial insert as first reported.Therefore, the catalog, lot, gtin, manufacture date, expiration date and 510k are all unknown.An event regarding revision due to malposition of an unknown triathlon baseplate was reported.The event was confirmed based on clinician review of the medical records.Method & results: -device evaluation and results: not performed as product was not returned - the baseplate remains implanted.-medical records received and evaluation: a review of the provided medical records and x-rays by a clinical consultant indicated: the event description states, ¿¿ left knee revised due to pain ¿ tilt of the tibial component was too strong ¿ all components well fixed ¿ decided to revise 4/9 cs insert to 4/11 cs insert.¿ no clinical or past medical history, no revision operative report or description of findings, no serial dated x-rays and no examination of the explanted insert is available.If, as suggested in the event description, the ¿tibial cut was too strong¿, perhaps difficulty with the orthoalign navigation system was involved.There is no evidence that factors associated with implant design, manufacturing, or materials were responsible for this revision surgery six months after implantation.-device history review: could not be performed as lot code information was not provided.-complaint history review: could not be performed as lot code information was not provided.Conclusions: a review of the provided medical records and x-rays by a clinical consultant indicated: the event description states, ¿¿ left knee revised due to pain ¿ tilt of the tibial component was too strong ¿ all components well fixed ¿ decided to revise 4/9 cs insert to 4/11 cs insert.¿ no clinical or past medical history, no revision operative report or description of findings, no serial dated x-rays and no examination of the explanted insert is available.If, as suggested in the event description, the ¿tibial cut was too strong¿, perhaps difficulty with the orthoalign navigation system was involved.There is no evidence that factors associated with implant design, manufacturing, or materials were responsible for this revision surgery six months after implantation.Further information such as clinical and past medical history, revision operative report including the description of findings, serial dated x-rays and examination of the explanted insert are needed to complete the investigation for determining root cause.No further investigation is possible at this time.If additional information becomes available to indicate further evaluation is warranted, this record will be reopened.
|