Concomitant medical products: avenirstem standard cemented, 5, taper 12/14, catalog #: 0106010205; lot #: 2818098.Allofit it alloclassic shell for acetabulum, uncemented, 56/kk, catalog #: 00875505600; lot #: 2817991.The manufacturer did not receive x-rays, or other source documents for review.The manufacturer did not receive the device for investigation.Where lot numbers were received for the explanted devices, the device history records were reviewed and found to be conforming.A cause for this specific event cannot be ascertained from the information provided.As soon as supplemental information becomes available an updated report will be submitted.(b)(4).
|
This follow-up report is being filled to relay investigation result.Dhr review: the device manufacturing quality records indicate that the released components met all requirements to perform as intended.Trend analysis: a trigger considering the following event is identified: dislocation 5 similar investigated events for the lot number 2806914 have been found.Event description: despite the revision surgery occurred on (b)(6) 2016, the patient felt pains.He is admitted to emergency which suspect a dislocation of the hip prosthesis.Review of received data: - some legal documentation and patient visit reports were received (in french).The legal documentation mentions that the patient had 4 times dislocation within 5 months.All these dislocations were occurred after the first revison surgery done on (b)(6), 2016.No other relevant information in the legal documentation.The patient visit reports show that on (b)(6), 2016 during a medical consultation presence of foreign body was noticed: two metal splinters seen on x-rays, which were not seen post-operatively.On (b)(6), 2016 those foreign bodies seemed to belong to the insert which had migrated; a loss of thickness of the implant (compared to x-rays from (b)(6), 2015) is also noticed / mentioned.No anomalies in the interface between bone and cup were seen.Soft tissue with these fragments was taken to analyses.It is also noted that the patient had always pain after the first revision surgery and therefore got some painkiller.- this patient had the initial surgery on (b)(6), 2015.After that time the patient had 2 revision surgeries and 4 times dislocation.See below the summary: - (b)(6), 2016 1st revision surgery due to ceramic insert fracture - (b)(6), 2016: 1st dislocation is suspected which is captured under (b)(4).- 2nd dislocation occurred on (b)(6), 2016 and captured under (b)(4).- 3rd dislocation occurred (b)(6), 2016 and captured under (b)(4).- 4th dislocation occurred (b)(6), 2016 and captured under (b)(4) (this complaint) - (b)(6), 2016 2nd revision surgery at the union clinic and captured under (b)(4).Device analysis: no product was returned to zimmer biomet for in-depth analysis.Review of product documentation: - all involved devices are intended for treatment.- the compatibility check was performed and showed that the product combination was approved by zimmer biomet.Conclusion: despite the revision surgery occurred on (b)(6) 2016, the patient felt pains.He is admitted to emergency which suspect a dislocation of the hip prosthesis.Some legal documentation and patient related reports were received (in french).These documents show that the patient had 2 revision surgeries and 4 dislocations within 5 months.In total 6 complaints were created for this patient.This complaint is for the fourth dislocation.Neither x-rays nor devices or photos of the explanted implants were received; therefore the condition of the components is unknown.The investigation results did not identify a non-conformance or a complaint out of box (coob).However, based on the given information and the results of the investigation, we were not able to identify a specific root cause for this issue.The need for corrective measures is not indicated and zimmer gmbh considers this case as closed.Zimmer biomet¿s reference number of this file is (b)(4).
|