|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to poor range of motion.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 3 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 met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a non-conforming material reports, ncmr number (b)(4), associated with the part# 241-02-105, empowr 3d kneetm femur, np, 5r which documents a nonconformance that out of 9 quantities lot, 1 part was rejected due to incomplete grit blast in interior box.The part was reworked with suitable operations and was accepted.All other items in the lot met the design, fit and function requirements.The device and its applicable concomitant devices were within their respective 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 poor range of motion.There are multiple factors that may contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical are poor bone density, inadequate soft tissue support, excessive range of motion, patient bone deterioration, degenerative bone disease, patient activities or trauma.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 are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|