|
The reason for this revision surgery was reported as fell.The previous surgery and the surgery detailed in this event occurred 19 days apart.The healthcare professional indicated there was a serious risk to the patient.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 component used in the previous surgery, when released for use, met design and manufacturing requirements.There was a nonconformance associated with the main part #425-97-011, taperfill hip stem, lateral offset, size 11 which documents that out of 12 parts lot, 1 part was rejected and scrapped due to tap broken while running.All other item in the lot were met with the design, fit and function requirements.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 fell.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.Agent has clearly mentioned that "patient fell, resulting in a periprosthetic femur fracture".There are multiple factors that may also contribute to the event that are outside the control of djo surgical such as poor bone density, inadequate soft tissue support, lack of post-operative care, patient activities or trauma.There are no indications of a product or process issue affecting implant safety or effectiveness.
|