|
Corrected data: see also d.1, d.2., d.4., d.11 and g.5.Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was due to fracture.The previous surgery and the revision detailed in this investigation occurred over 17 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(s) used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There were no non-conforming material reports (ncmrs) associated with the product that may have contributed to the reported event.The device was verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and was within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported devices 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.There were no findings during this investigation that indicate that the reported devices was the source or had a direct connection with the patient's event.Agent has clearly mentioned that "patient fell and fractured her leg", it seems that the event may have possibly occurred due to: lack of post-operative care, patient noncompliance with medical instructions, 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.
|