|
The devices, used in treatment, were not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The medical investigation concluded that, per revision report, the tibial and femoral components were well seated, however, the insert was anteriorly dislocated and the femoral component was worn.The patient crp was normal.The report of persistent pain, metal synovitis and blackened deposits are consistent with an adverse reaction to metal debris, which could have been due to the wear of the femoral component when the insert dislocated.Without the metal ions/pathology results, imaging, or the analysis of the explanted components, the source cannot be confirmed.It cannot be concluded that the reported clinical reactions were associated with a mal-performance of the implant.The revision findings of wear and deformity of the poly insert are consistent with the report failure.The patient¿s history of twisting of the left knee cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.Post revision, this patient is participating in physical therapy; pain is mild and easily controlled without pain medication.No further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.A review of complaint history did not reveal additional complaints for the listed batches.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management file and instructions for use documents revealed this failure mode was previously identified.Some potential probable causes could include abnormal loading or a traumatic event.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint.
|