|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to a posterior cruciate l igament (pcl) rupture.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this investigation occurred 14.5 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.The previous invoice did not contain the item and or lot numbers, therefore; a review of the device history records (dhr) could not be conducted.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 pcl rupture.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was defective.The surgeon performed this procedure to remedy the patient's condition.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.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|