|
|
| Model Number |
208-01-02 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Naturally Worn (2988); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
06/05/2014
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This submission represents 1 of 163 events identified via active surveillance activities utilizing data form the (b)(6).Follow-ups for additional information cannot be performed for this complaint as the information was submitted as complete by the registry; there is no identification of facilities or surgeons.All available information about the event and/or patient has been provided and it is not possible to obtain any of the devices.Additional information, including the product investigation, will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported by (b)(6), this (b)(6) y/o, female patient underwent primary total prosthetic replacement using cement of the left knee via medial parapatellar approach on (b)(6) 2011.The indication for the index procedure was previous trauma.On (b)(6) 2014, approximately 30 months post implantation, the patient underwent revision due to instability and wear of polyethylene component.The follow-ups for additional information cannot be performed for this complaint, information was submitted as complete by the (b)(6); there is no identification of facilities or surgeons.All available information about the event and/or patient has been provided.These devices are used for treatment not diagnosis.Total knee replacement instability is noted to occur due to surgical techniques of creating excessive flexion gaps, inadequate filling of the extension space due to the components not being thick enough, soft tissue/ligament damage, and/or injury incurred during post-op rehabilitation therapy.Musculoskeletal key, (2018, october).Treatment of instability after total knee replacement; electronic source.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The evaluation noted that revision reported was likely the result of a combination of multiple patient-related conditions contributing to tibial insert wear.However, this cannot be confirmed because the component was not returned for evaluation and no additional first-hand details or radiographs were provided.This submission represents 1 of 163 events identified via active surveillance activities utilizing data form the (b)(6).Follow-ups for additional information cannot be performed for this complaint as the information was submitted as complete by the registry; there is no identification of facilities or surgeons.All available information about the event and/or patient has been provided and it is not possible to obtain any of the devices no information provided in the following section(s): a4, a5, and b6.The following section(s) have additional info: d2, d4 (catalog number, serial number, exp date, and udi number), g4, g5, g7, h1, h2, h3, h4 h6, and h7.Section h11: corrections made in the following section(s): (d2) common device name.(d4) catalog number, serial number, exp date, and udi number.(g5) 510k number.(h6) evaluation codes.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|