|
The reason for this revision surgery was the patient dislocated.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 39 days apart.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.This investigation is limited in scope as limited information was provided to djo surgical - austin for examination and the part associated with this investigation was not returned to djo surgical for review.A review of the implant device history records (dhr) shows that the reported components used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports associated with the product that may have contributed to the event.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 dislocation.There are many factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical are patient activities, inadequate soft tissue support, excessive range of motion or trauma.Due to the short time between the original and revision surgery, the event may have possibly occurred due to lack of post-operative care or patient non-compliance with medical instructions.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities that may have contributed to the event and hence a definitive root cause cannot be determined.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was the source or had a direct connection with the patient's dislocation.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|