|
The reason for this revision surgery was due to fracture.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 1 year 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 components used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a nonconformance associated with the part # 324-01-104, baseplate stemmed non porous tibial cocr size 4r, that out of 16 quantities lot, 1 part was rejected and scrapped due to cracks in the face of part & too thin walls.All other items in the lot were met with design and manufacturing requirements.The device and its applicable concomitant devices were within their respective expiration dates 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 fracture.Agent has clearly mentioned that, "trauma related fractured tibia.Removed everything except for patella", it seems that the event may have possibly occurred due to lack of post-operative care, patient noncompliance with medical instructions, poor bone density, patient bone deterioration, degenerative bone disease, patient activities or trauma.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported device was the source or had a direct connection with the patient's event.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.
|