|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as damage of soft tissue from a fall.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 1 year and 1 month 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 devices were disposed of at hospital and not made available to djo surgical for examination.A review of the device history records (dhr) show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a nonconformance associated with the main part #242-02-108, empowr ps kneetm femur, nonporous, 8r which documents that out of 9 parts lot, 3 parts were rejected and scrapped due to dimension out of tolerance.All other item in the lot were met with the design, fit and function requirements.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration dates at the time of the previous surgery.Customer complaint history of the reported devices showed no present trends or on-going issues that are needing a review.The root cause of this complaint was a revision surgery due to damage of soft tissue from a fall.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were defective.No other information was submitted with the complaint regarding pre-existing conditions of the patient or any activities the patient was involved in that may have contributed to the event.Agent has clearly mentioned that the soft tissue was damaged due to initial fall it seems that the event may occurred due to, patient noncompliance with medical instructions, lack of care, patient activities or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|