|
The associated device, used in treatment, was returned and evaluated.A visual inspection of the returned device confirmed the stated failure mode.The post fractured off the device and was returned.The device was manufactured in 2006 and shows signs of extensive wear.The knee insert post fracture may have been due to repeated posterior contact of the femoral cam on the post combined with excessive posterior to anterior shear force during activity.The medical investigation concluded that the two undated, unlabeled x-rays provided show ap and lateral views but are a single time point.It cannot be concluded there is has been shifting of position of the tibia or femoral components to allow for the reported repeated posterior contact to the post.Based on the product evaluation, age related wear was the likely cause of the reported implant breakage.However, we cannot rule out the patient¿s weight, bone quality, trauma history, medical history or change in implant position over time or joint laxity as likely contributing factors to the reported fracture.The future impact to the patient beyond the revision cannot be determined.No further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.A review of complaint history did not reveal additional complaints for the listed batch.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management file and instructions for use documents revealed this failure mode was previously identified.Some potential probable causes for this event could include improper sizing or abnormal loading of the limb.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.
|