Skip to content

Optetrak Logic 02-012-41-5040Recalls & reported problems

Exactech, Inc. · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Optetrak Logic (408)

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

Adverse event reports
5
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
5
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 5 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10885862003256), received between Oct 19, 2020 and Jul 31, 2025 — classified as 5 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth” (4 reports).

7 other recalls cover devices cleared under the same FDA submission (K933610); they may or may not involve this specific model.

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: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 2 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 1 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 1 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 reports2024202520262
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth4
  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
  • Unstable1

Patient problems

  • Failure of Implant3
  • Osteolysis3
  • Pain2
  • Ambulation or Postural Difficulties1
  • Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available1
  • Aseptic loosening1
  • Cyst(s)1
  • Discomfort1

Recent adverse event reports

The 5 most recent of 5 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJul 31, 2025Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT APPROXIMATELY 124 MONTHS AFTER A RIGHT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS PROSTHESIS WEAR. REVISION SURGERY OPERATIVE NOTES WERE PROVIDED. FINDINGS INDICATED WEAR OF THE PATELLA AND TIBIAL POLYETHYLENE INSERT, A LOOSE TIBIAL COMPONENT, AND TIBIAL BONE LOSS. THE SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION RIGHT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY USING A COMPETITOR¿S DEVICES. PATIENT WAS AWAKENED, EXTUBATED, AND BROUGHT TO THE RECOVERY ROOM IN STABLE CONDITION. HE TOLERATED THE PROCEDURE WELL AND THERE WERE NO KNOW COMPLICATIONS. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Aseptic loosening; Osteolysis; Pain

    MAUDE report 22681597 ↗
  • InjuryMar 5, 2025Unstable; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Unstable; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 82 MONTHS AFTER A TOTAL REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS LOOSENING, CYST(S), JOINT LAXITY, OSSIFICATION, SCAR TISSUE, OSTEOLYSIS, PAIN, AND SYNOVITIS. REVISION SURGERY OPERATIVE NOTES WERE PROVIDED. PATIENT LEFT THE OPERATING ROOM IN STABLE CONDITION. POST OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS NOTED WEAR OF THE IMPLANT. NO FURTHER ISSUES OR COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Cyst(s); Extraskeletal ossification; Joint Laxity; Osteolysis; Pain; Scar Tissue; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 21528714 ↗
  • InjuryJan 24, 2025Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT APPROXIMATELY 24 MONTHS AFTER A RIGHT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS PROSTHESIS WEAR, OSTEOARTHRITIS, LOOSE FEMORAL COMPONENT, AND BODY WEAR OF THE PATELLAR COMPONENT. INITIAL SURGERY AND REVISION SURGERY OPERATIVE NOTES WERE PROVIDED. PATIENT LEFT THE OPERATING ROOM IN STABLE CONDITION. POST OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS NOTED WEAR OF THE IMPLANT AND A LOOSE FEMORAL COMPONENT. NO FURTHER ISSUES OR COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. UNABLE TO LOCATE PATIENT/SERIAL NUMBER IN EBI. SERIAL NUMBER PROVIDED. HISTORICAL RECORD AND SMARTSOLVE SEARCHED FOR SN/PATIENT NAME WITH NO RESULTS. NO FURTHER INFORMATION. X-RAY: NO. OPERATIVE NOTES: YES. CONCOMITANT DEVICES ARE UNKNOWN.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 21228849 ↗
  • InjuryJan 3, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT APPROXIMATELY 121 MONTHS AFTER A LEFT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS LOOSENING, AMBULATION DIFFICULTIES, DISCOMFORT, FAILURE OF IMPLANT, IMPLANT PAIN AND OSTEOLYSIS. REVISION SURGERY OPERATIVE NOTES WERE PROVIDED. PATIENT LEFT THE OPERATING ROOM IN STABLE CONDITION. NO FURTHER ISSUES OR COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Ambulation or Postural Difficulties; Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available; Discomfort; Failure of Implant; Implant Pain; Osteolysis

    MAUDE report 21069493 ↗
  • InjuryOct 19, 2020Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED A RIGHT KNEE REVISION SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2011, DUE TO ASEPTIC LOOSENING. INITIAL SURGERY DATE WAS (B)(6) 2009. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENT OR PATIENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 10702464 ↗

Recalls under the same FDA submission

These recalls involve devices cleared under K933610. One submission often covers many models, so check the product and lot details in each record.

  • Z-2156-2024 · Apr 18, 2024 · Open, Classified
    OPTETRAK One Peg Patella,, Item Numbers: a) 200-03-26, 26MM; b) 200-03-29, 29MM; c) 200-03-32, 32MM; d) 200-03-35, 35MM; e) 200-03-38, 38MM; f) 200-03-41, 41MM
  • Z-2155-2024 · Apr 18, 2024 · Open, Classified
    OPTETRAK Three Peg Patella, Item Numbers: a) 200-02-26, 26MM; b) 200-02-29, 29MM; c) 200-02-32, 32MM; d) 200-02-35, 35MM; e) 200-02-38, 38MM; f) 200-02-41, 41MM;
  • Z-2157-2024 · Apr 18, 2024 · Open, Classified
    OPTETRAK Inset Patella, Item Numbers: a) 200-05-23, 23MM; b) 200-05-26, 26MM; c) 200-05-29, 29MM
  • Z-2158-2024 · Apr 18, 2024 · Open, Classified
    OPTETRAK, Advanced Patella, 3 Peg Implant, Item Numbers: a) 200-07-26, 26MM; b) 200-07-29, 29MM; c) 200-07-32, 32MM; d) 200-07-35, 35MM; e) 200-07-38, 38MM
  • Z-0582-2024 · Nov 21, 2023 · Open, Classified
    Exactech Optetrak Knee System, Catalog Numbers: a) 200-02-26, b) 200-02-29, c) 200-02-32, d) 200-02-35, e) 200-02-38, f) 200-02-41, g) 200-03-32, h) 200-07-29, i) 200-07-
  • Z-2070-2012 · Sep 23, 2011 · Terminated
    Product is labeled in part: "***OPTETRAK***TIBIAL TRAY***TRAPEZOID CEMENTED***Ti Alloy*** SIZE 1F/1T, 2F/1T***FOR CEMENTED USE ONLY***Exactech, Gainesville, FL 32653-1630.***REF 2
  • Z-0347-05 · Nov 11, 2004 · Terminated
    Cemented Trapezoid Tibial Tray Sz. 4F/4T, Knee joint patellofemorotibial polymer/metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis.

Other Prosthesis, Knee, Patellofemorotibial, Semi-Constrained, Cemented, Polymer/Metal/Polymer devices

All Prosthesis, Knee, Patellofemorotibial, Semi-Constrained, Cemented, Polymer/Metal/Polymer devices →

Sources and updates

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