Corrected data: see: common device name manufacturer narrative: the reason for this second revision surgery was due to the polyethylene slipping out and breaking.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this investigation occurred 1.4 years 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.The device was disposed of at the hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the implant device history records (dhr), shows that the reported component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was within its expiration date at the time of 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 the polyethylene breaking.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was defective.No information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside of the control of djo surgical.Tthere are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|