|
Additional information: d11: the device, used in treatment was not returned for evaluation, reporting event could not be confirmed.A clinical evaluation was conducted and the contraindicated off-label, concomitant use of competitor components with the smith and nephew stem cannot be ruled out as the contributing factor to the reported dislocation, which led to a 2nd revision.Without complete supporting medical records, imaging, and/or the analysis of the explanted components, it is not possible to determine whether there was proper positioning of the implant, or whether the patient sustained any traumatic injuries which may have been a contributing factor leading to the reported dislocation and revision.Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the revision was due to a mal-performance of the implant.The patient impact beyond the reported dislocation and subsequent (2nd) revision and post-operative healing and rehab cannot be determined.A review of complaint history on the listed part revealed no prior complaints for the listed batch with the same failure mode.A review of the device history records for the listed batch did not reveal any deviation from the standard manufacturing processes.Possible causes could include but not limited to traumatic injury, patient anatomy or abnormal loading of limb.A review of the risk management file and instructions for use document for this failure mode was conducted.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the actual product involved and/or device information, our investigation cannot proceed.If the device or new information is received in the future, this complaint can be re-opened.No further actions are being taken at this time.
|