|
Reported event an event regarding a revision surgery due to pain for an accolade stem was reported.Revision was confirmed as the devices were explanted and subsequently, corrosion was confirmed by mar.Method & results -product evaluation and results: visual inspection: visual inspection was performed as part of the material analysis report mar, dated 24-mar-2020.This inspection indicated damage consistent with explantation process was observed on the neck and trunnion of the stem.Damage consistent with head taper and stem trunnion interaction was observed.Biological material was observed on the porous coating of the stem.Debris was observed on the inferior portion of the stem, the debris was analyzed further using a scanning electron microscope sem.Dimensional inspection: dimensional inspection was not performed because the device was returned damaged functional inspection: functional inspection was not performed because the device was returned damaged material analysis: material evaluation was completed and indicated the following comments: damage on the returned head was consistent with interaction against the stem trunnion.Damage consistent with the explantation process was observed on the stem.Eds showed that the stem and head were consistent with their respective drawings.The debris on the each of the components were consistent with an oxide, a corrosion product, biological material, and the stem base alloy.Based on the given information, no identifiable materials or manufacturing discrepancies were observed on the surfaces examined.-medical records received and evaluation: a review of the provided medical records and x-rays by a clinical consultant indicated: no clinical or past medical history, no imaging studies, no examination of the explanted components, and no documented follow-up between the january 7, 2010 index surgery and august 9, 2019 are available.Examination of the explanted components and review of the mri and x-rays, as well as review of histopathology slides would be required to confirm the relationship between the recalled modular head and the symptoms described in this case leading to revision surgery.-product history review: a review of the device manufacturing records indicate that all devices accepted into final stock were free from discrepancies.-complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the lot referenced.Conclusions: material evaluation was completed and indicated the following comments: damage on the returned head was consistent with interaction against the stem trunnion.Damage consistent with the explantation process was observed on the stem.Eds showed that the stem and head were consistent with their respective drawings.The debris on the each of the components were consistent with an oxide, a corrosion product, biological material, and the stem base alloy.Based on the given information, no identifiable materials or manufacturing discrepancies were observed on the surfaces examined.
|