Skip to content

Trident 690-10-22ERecalls & reported problems

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. · Constrained Acet. Liner · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Trident (160)

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

1 open recall names this device. See the recall details and contact the manufacturer or your healthcare provider.

Adverse event reports
7
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
7
Recalls naming it
1

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 7 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 07613327024289), received between May 31, 2019 and Sep 25, 2024 — classified as 7 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Dislodged or Dislocated” (4 reports).

1 FDA recall record name this device's identifier, 1 still open.

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: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 1 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: 0 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.

Recalls naming this device

  1. Jul 30, 2026Open, Classified

    Affected devices were manufactured with Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) raw material aged in excess of five years. Product has the potential for elevated levels of oxidation, which may result in increased wear, leading to hazards such as excessive wear debris, material fragments, fractured device, or disassociated device. Potential harms include revision surgery, pain, and inflammation.

    Z-3201-2026 · Root cause: Process change control · Recall details · FDA record ↗

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Device Dislodged or Dislocated4
  • Detachment of Device or Device Component2
  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1

Patient problems

  • Injury2
  • Ambulation or Postural Difficulties1
  • Fall1
  • Insufficient Information1
  • Joint Dislocation1
  • 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.

  • InjurySep 25, 2024Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT'S RIGHT HIP WAS REVISED DUE TO DISSOCIATION OF THE CONSTRAINED LINER FROM THE SHELL. THE CONSTRAINED LINER AND 22 +5 FEMORAL HEAD WERE REVISED TO A 10° CONSTRAINED LINER AND +10 FEMORAL HEAD. REP CONFIRMED THAT THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE REVISED FEMORAL HEAD, AND CONFIRMED THAT NO FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE RELEASED BY THE HOSPITAL OR SURGEON.

    Patient problems: Ambulation or Postural Difficulties

    MAUDE report 20306648 ↗
  • InjuryJun 13, 2022Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    IT HAS BEEN REPORTED "DISLOCATIONS IN A PATIENT AFTER UNDERGOING TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY WITH STRYKER PRODUCTS - YEAR 2010."

    Patient problems: Joint Dislocation

    MAUDE report 14682286 ↗
  • InjuryMay 26, 2022Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT'S LEFT HIP WAS REVISED DUE TO DISSOCIATION OF THE INNER BIPOLAR COMPONENT FROM THE OUTER COMPONENT OF A CONSTRAINED LINER. THE LINER, FEMORAL HEAD, AND PROXIMAL FEMUR WERE REVISED. REP CONFIRMED THERE WERE NO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE REVISED HEAD, AND THAT THE SURGEON REVISED THE PROXIMAL FEMUR ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS EASY TO REVISE PROPHYLACTICALLY AGAINST INFECTION.

    Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

    MAUDE report 14506729 ↗
  • InjuryOct 22, 2021Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    IT WAS REPORTED THE PATIENT'S LEFT HIP WAS REVISED DUE TO DISSOCIATION OF THE CONSTRAINED LINER FROM THE SHELL. ONLY THE CONSTRAINED LINER WAS REVISED. SURGEON REPORTED THAT IMPINGEMENT OF THE PROXIMAL BODY, AND THE SHELL'S POSITION BEING NEUTRAL AS CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR REPEATED DISSOCIATION.

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 12681837 ↗
  • InjuryApr 26, 2021Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT'S LEFT HIP WAS REVISED. PATIENT FELL IN 2018 AND HAS HAD PAIN EVER SINCE. A STRYKER CONSTRAINED LINER AND COMPETITOR FEMORAL HEAD WERE REVISED. REP PROVIDED A PRIMARY OPERATIVE REPORT, VISIT NOTES, USAGE SHEET, AND EXAM RESULTS, AND CONFIRMED THAT NO FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE RELEASED BY THE HOSPITAL OR SURGEON.

    Patient problems: Fall; Pain

    MAUDE report 11729558 ↗
  • InjuryNov 22, 2019Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    PATIENT WITH A PREVIOUS THA DISLOCATED. CONSTRAINED LINER DISSOCIATED FROM ACETABULAR SHELL. A NEW CONSTRAINED LINER AND HEAD WERE IMPLANTED.

    Patient problems: Injury

    MAUDE report 9365679 ↗
  • InjuryMay 31, 2019Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    REP REPORTED "PATIENT IMPLANTED WITH 10* TRIDENT CONSTRAINED ACETABULAR LINER WITH 22MM/0+ INNER HEAD. LINER DISASSOCIATED FROM SHELL UPON PATIENT TRANSFER FROM SURGICAL TABLE TO HOSPITAL BED, POST ANESTHESIA WAKEUP AND SITE CLOSURE. PATIENT HAD TO BE REINDUCED AND RE-OPENED FOR IMMEDIATE REVISION. CONSTRAINED LINER AND INNER HEAD WERE REVISED TO NEW IMPLANTS; SURGEON REQUESTED THAT PRIMARY IMPLANTS BE INVESTIGATED. UPDATE: "NO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE HEAD; SURGEON QUESTION LOCKING MECHANISM." RIGHT SIDE.

    Patient problems: Injury

    MAUDE report 8658163 ↗

Other Prosthesis, hip, constrained, cemented or uncemented, metal/polymer devices

All Prosthesis, hip, constrained, cemented or uncemented, metal/polymer devices →

Sources and updates

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