Skip to content

REDAPT 71354234Recalls & reported problems

Smith & Nephew, Inc. · REDAPT FULLY POROUS SHELL 58MM · Class 2 · Implant

All models of REDAPT (89)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
7
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
7
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 7 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00885556321447), received between Nov 13, 2019 and Apr 28, 2026 — classified as 7 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Dislodged or Dislocated” (2 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 16, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 1 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 1 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Device Dislodged or Dislocated2
  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
  • Fracture1
  • Insufficient Device Problem Information1
  • Off-Label Use1
  • Osseointegration Problem1

Patient problems

  • Injury2
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions2
  • Bone Fracture(s)1
  • Failure of Implant1
  • Insufficient Information1
  • Pain1
  • Unspecified Infection1

Recent adverse event reports

The 7 most recent of 7 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryApr 28, 2026Fracture

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT, AFTER THR SURGERY HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON 2017, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED THE BREAKAGE OF ONE (1) REDAPT FULLY POROUS SHELL 58MM. THIS ADVERSE EVENT WAS SOLVED BY A REVISION SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2026, IN WHICH THE CUP WAS EXCHANGE. CURRENT HEALTH STATUS OF PATIENT IS UNKNOWN.

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information; No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 25024149 ↗
  • InjuryJun 26, 2024Off-Label Use; Off-Label Use

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT, AFTER A THR PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2024, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SURGEON IMPLANTED THE WRONG DEVICE: A REDAPT FULLY POROUS SHELL 58MM. EVEN THOUGH THE IMPLANT WAS LABELED CLEARLY, IT WAS OPENED AND IMPLANTED BY MISTAKE. DUE TO TWO INCOMPATIBLE IMPLANTS BEING PLACED IN THE PATIENT, A REVISION SURGERY WAS CONDUCTED THE NEXT DAY TO ADDRESS THIS EVENT. THE PATIENT HAS NOT PRESENTED FURTHER COMPLICATIONS.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 19614566 ↗
  • InjuryOct 29, 2021Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    (B)(6). IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER A REVISION SURGERY TO A THA WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2018, THE PLAINTIFF EXPERIENCED LEFT HIP PAIN. A CT SCAN WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2018, AND 1-2 MM ACETABULAR PROTRUSION ON THE LEFT HIP, SUBTLE 1 MM FRACTURE ALONG THE INNER PELVIC BRIM ADJACENT TO THE ACETABULAR IMPLANT, AND SOME IRREGULARITY OF THE ACETABULAR RIM IMPLANT WERE FOUND. IT IS UNKNOWN IF OR HOW THESE FINDINGS WERE TREATED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS UNKNOWN. PATIENT OUTCOME IS UNKNOWN.

    Patient problems: Bone Fracture(s); Pain

    MAUDE report 12720602 ↗
  • InjurySep 23, 2021Osseointegration Problem; Osseointegration Problem

    (B)(6) LEGAL. BILATERAL PATIENT. IT WAS REPORTED THAT, AFTER A PRIMARY REVISION SURGERY HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON THE PLAINTIFF¿S RIGHT HIP ON (B)(6) 2019, THE PLAINTIFF EXPERIENCED LOOSENING OF THE ACETABULAR SHELL IMPLANT DUE TO LOSS OF OSTEOINTEGRATION. A SECOND REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2020 TO TREAT THIS ADVERSE EVENT; THE, REDAPT PT FULLY POROUS SHELL 58MM, 12/14 TAPER FEMORAL HEAD 36MM OXINIUM AND REDAPT CEMENTED LINER XLPE 36MMX58MM WERE EXPLANTED. THE PLAINTIFF WAS TAKEN TO RECOVERY ROOM IN GOOD CONDITION.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 12519828 ↗
  • InjuryJan 16, 2020Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION SURGERY DUE TO INFECTION. A NEW NON-READAPT POLAR CUP WAS IMPLANTED SO THE SUBJECT IS NO LONGER ENROLLED IN THE STUDY. THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION THAT THE OTHER DEVICES WERE FROM SMITH AND NEPHEW.

    Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

    MAUDE report 9598468 ↗
  • InjuryJan 13, 2020Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    (B)(6). EVENT: IT WAS REPORTED THAT CLOSE REDUCTION WAS PERFORMED DUE TO A DISLOCATION OF LEFT HIP.

    Patient problems: Injury

    MAUDE report 9580025 ↗
  • InjuryNov 13, 2019Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED DUE TO DISLOCATION. THIS WAS AN ONGOING ISSUE THE PATIENT ALREADY UNDERWENT A CLOSED REDUCTION DUE TO DISLOCATION ON 30 MAY 2017.

    Patient problems: Injury

    MAUDE report 9315159 ↗

Other Prosthesis, hip, semi-constrained, metal/polymer, cemented devices

All Prosthesis, hip, semi-constrained, metal/polymer, cemented devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page