|
Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as component loosening.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 4 years and 7 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 device history records show that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a ncmr#23835 associated with the concomitant part #520-42-116, head, humeral, offset, 42-16, which documents that out of 10 parts lot, 1 part was rejected due to scratches on finished surface.Later the rejected part was reworked and accepted.The devices were verified to have gone through an acceptable sterilization process and were within its expiration date at the time of the previous surgery.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 loosening.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate that the reported devices were defective.There are multiple factors that may contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, patient bone deterioration, inadequate soft tissue support, excessive range of motion, prolonged overhead activities, patient activities or trauma.There was no information submitted with this complaint about any patient activities, accidents, or medical contraindications that may have contributed to the reported event.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|