|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as dislocation.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 1 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 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 an nonconformance associated with the main part #360-09-506, insert, posterior stabilized, series 500, size6 9mm cm which documents that out of 20 parts lot, 1 part was rejected and scrapped, due to tool line in condyle.All other item in the lot were met with the design, fit and function requirements.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 device 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 dislocation.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported device was defective.No 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.There are multiple factors that may also contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as degenerative bone disease, excessive range of motion, excessive range of motion, patient activities or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|