|
This submission represents 1 of 163 events identified via active surveillance activities utilizing data form (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.
|
|
As reported by (b)(6), this (b)(6), 165 cm, (b)(6) (bmi=48), male patient underwent primary total prosthetic replacement using cement of the left knee via medial parapatellar approach on (b)(6) 2005.The indication for the index procedure was osteoarthritis.On (b)(6) 2005, approximately 3 months post implantation, the patient underwent revision due to aseptic loosening femur, aseptic loosening tibia, and infection.Follow-ups for additional information cannot be performed for this complaint, information was submitted as complete by (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.Infection is a clinically well-known potential complication of any surgical procedure including knee arthroplasty.If infection occurs after knee replacement, whether related to the procedure or otherwise, the foreign metal and plastic implants can serve as a surface for the bacteria to latch onto, inaccessible to antibiotics.Even if the implants remain well fixed, the pain, swelling, and drainage from the infection make the revision surgery necessary.With current surgical techniques and antibiotic regimens, the rate of infection following total knee arthroplasty ranges from 0.4% to 2.5%.1 the highest risk period for infection is between six months and three years.2 1.P.B.Voleti, k.D.Baldwin, and gwo-chin lee.¿use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic literature review¿.The journal of bone and joint surgery.Sept 2013; 95-a: 1594-9.2.J.B.Meding, m.A.Ritter, k.E.Davis, and a.Farris."meeting increased demand for total knee replacement and follow-up: determining optimal follow-up".The bone and joint journal.Nov 2013; 95-b: 1484-9.Sterile certification reviewed; devices were sterilized and released according to specifications.
|
|
Section h10: (h3) the evaluation noted that revision reported is septic loosening secondary to a nosocomial infection.However, a definitive contribution of mechanical loosening and infection to the sequence of events cannot be determined as the devices were not available for evaluation and additional clinical information was not available.This submission represents 1 of 163 events identified via active surveillance activities utilizing data form the united kingdom national joint registry (uknjr).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): a5, and b6, the following section(s) have additional info: g4, g7, h1, h2, h3, and h7.
|