Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this revision surgery was reported as switching of empower knee to epic knee.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 2 months and 2 weeks 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) shows that the reported components used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements and showed no non-conforming material reports (ncmr) associated with the main contributor component listed in the complaint.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.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 switched to empowr knee to epic knee.There were no findings during this evaluation that indicate the reported devices were 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 contribute to an event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, patient bone deterioration, inadequate soft tissue support, prolonged overhead activities, patient activities or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|