|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as peri-prosthetic fracture.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 5 years and 3 months 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 (dhrs) show that the reported component used in the previous surgery met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports (ncmrs) associated with the product that may have contributed to the event.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 peri-prosthetic fracture.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.Agent has clearly mentioned that patient fell and sustained a peri-prosthetic fracture, it seems that the event may have occurred due to excessive loading, poor bone density, lack of care, patient activities or trauma.No additional information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient 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.
|