Search

Introduction Orthopaedic devices represent 12% of all medical device recalls. Products are approved through pre-market approval (PMA) or the 510(k) premarket notification process. No previous evaluation was found in the literature evaluating foot and ankle device recalls. The field of foot and ankle subspecialty has seen a rapid growth in innovation related to implants in recent years. Methods The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Device Recall database was evaluated for all foot and ankle devices from 2007 through 2017 for the manufacturer, process of approval, type of implant, recall class, dates of initiation and termination of the recall, manufacturer determined reason, quantity affected, and distribution within the United States or internationally. Results A total of 161 products from 33 companies were identified with 158 (98.1%) approved through the 510(k) process. The most common reason for device recall was due to the device breaking intraoperatively or postoperatively. The average length of the recall was 487.5 days. Conclusions Device recall is not an uncommon event with the majority of products approved through the less demanding 510(k) process.

Synovial chondromatosis of the ankle is rare and sparsely documented. Traditional surgical intervention is open loose body excision and synovectomy. Upon literature review, only two other cases were found to be managed arthroscopically. We report a case of synovial chondromatosis in a 54-year-old man leading to pain and limited range of motion of his ankle. This unique case of extensive nodule formation was treated via a three-port arthroscopic approach. Removal of loose bodies and synovectomy were successfully performed arthroscopically. A total of 76 loose bodies were removed and synovectomy performed using a 3.5 mm diameter full radius shaver. This case demonstrates that a three-port arthroscopic approach can provide adequate treatment while maintaining the superior risk profile inherent to arthroscopic intervention.

Background There is a noticeable lack of studies examining the connection between psychiatric illness and orthopaedic injury. The goal of this study is to determine if a relationship exists between calcaneus fracture and psychiatric illness or use of psychotropic medication. Methods A retrospective review was undertaken of calcaneus fracture patients at our institution from January 2011 through January 2014, and those with a diagnosis of psychiatric illness or history of psychotropic medication usage were identified. Medication records were analyzed along with medical histories taken during the initial encounter. If the patient was admitted, hospital notes for the hospitalization were reviewed to determine if any information was missed during the initial encounter. The date of injury, age, sex, insurance status at the time of initial encounter, psychiatric diagnoses or psychotropic medication use, and mechanism of injury were recorded. Any specific psychiatric diagnoses were collected from the patient charts, as was the presence of any specific prescribed psychotropic medications. After completion of the data collection, an attending psychiatrist verified the recorded data to ensure an accurate psychiatric assessment. Results A total of 85 calcaneus fractures met the inclusion criteria. In the population, there were 71 males and 14 females. The average age of the patients was 41.74 years, with 24% of patients having a diagnosis of psychiatric illness at the time of injury. The relative risk of a psychiatric illness in males compared to females was 0.31 (p = 0.009) while the relative risk of using psychotropic medication in males compared to females was 0.17 (p = 0.0007). Males were less likely to undergo operative intervention than females (p = 0.0001). The average age of a patient who either had a diagnosis or took medication for a psychiatric illness was 48.4 years, as compared to 39.7 years in those who did not (p = 0.014). Conclusion Males were less likely to have a psychiatric illness or be currently treated with psychotropic medications. A dedicated review of psychiatric history and prior medication may be useful during preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative treatment planning. Level of Clinical Evidence: 4.