|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to dislocation.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 30 days 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.A review of the device history records showed no non-conforming material reports associated with the main contributor component listed in the complaint.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 (s) 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 dislocation.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device (s) was the source or had a direct connection with the patient's event.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, patient bone deterioration, excessive range of motion, degenerative bone disease, patient activities or trauma.Due to the short time between the previous and revision surgery, the event may have been possibly occurred due to improper implant selection, patient non-compliance with medical instructions.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.
|