|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to failed insert.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this investigation occurred 4.3 years apart.There is no information in this complaint about any patient injuries, activities, or accidents that may have contributed to the need for this revision surgery.There are no reported pre-existing patient health conditions.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.Examination of the returned insert shows the poly was worn down most likely due to femur position.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 ncmrs (non-conforming material reports) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.The vendors certificate of compliance, for the poly, was reviewed and all material met specifications per material specification #2 revision d.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 failed insert.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was defective.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside of the control of djo surgical.Inventory containment is not required as there are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|