It was reported a 4 year 5 month post-op knee dislocated.A patient was sent to the emergency room (er) per surgeon recommendation, due to a dislocated columbus knee implant.The patient had initial surgery on (b)(6) 2014.The patient reported to the emergency room team that while getting out of a chair the knee locked up.An x-ray was taken to confirm the dislocation and the patient was scheduled for revision surgery with a tentative date of (b)(6) 2019, and it will likely be a poly exchange to a thicker more constrained poly.The patient's revision took place on (b)(6) 2019 with only the poly insert being revised.No other information has been provided.Additional information has been requested, however, not yet received.
|
Associated medwatches: 9610612-2019-00207, 9610612-2019-00208, 9610612-2019-00209, 9610612-2019-00210, 9610612-2019-00211, 9610612-2019-00212, 9610612-2019-00213.Manufacturing site evaluation: there are no devices available for investigation.Some x-ray figures were provided to us.Investigation: no product at hand, therefore an investigation is not possible.The provided x-rays give no hints for the root cause of the mentioned luxation.Batch history review: the device quality and manufacturing history records have been checked for all available lot numbers and found to be according to our specifications valid at the time of production.No similar incidents have been filed with products from these batches.Conclusion and root cause: based on the information available it is not possible to determine a definitive root cause for the failure.It appears that the failure is not product related.It could be possible that the failure is patient related.Rationale: in the light of the small amount of information received and due to the circumstance that we did not receive the complained devices for investigation, it is not possible to determine a definitive root cause for the mentioned failure.There are no hints for a material problem.According to the quality standard and device history records (dhr) files a material defect and production error is improbable.Statement from product management representative: as this is a "post-jump", this refers to a flexion gap which is larger than the jumping distance of the implant.The performed jumping distance of the implant was exceeded by a large bend or stretch gap.Whether this excessive flexion already existed intraoperatively or was acquired postoperatively (for example, through trauma) can no longer be identified unequivocally.
|