Skip to content

Optetrak 200-06-12Recalls & reported problems

Exactech, Inc. · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Optetrak (336)

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

Adverse event reports
2
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
2
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 2 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10885862039903), received between Feb 18, 2025 and Sep 24, 2026 — classified as 2 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Naturally Worn” (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: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 1 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: 1 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Naturally Worn2
  • Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth1

Patient problems

  • Failure of Implant1
  • Osteolysis1
  • Pain1
  • Scar Tissue1
  • Swelling/ Edema1
  • Synovitis1

Recent adverse event reports

The 2 most recent of 2 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjurySep 24, 2026Naturally Worn

    It was reported that the patient underwent a knee replacement utilizing an Optetrak CR Slope++ tibial insert. Subsequently, the patient experienced knee pain and swelling. The surgeon diagnosed wear of the tibial insert, and a revision procedure was performed. During the revision, damage and wear were observed on the retrieved tibial insert and tibial tray. As a result, the tibial insert, tibial tray, and femoral component were explanted and replaced with an Activit-E PSC Size 1, 15 mm insert, a Size 1F/1T tibial tray, and a Logic Femoral Component Size 1 Right. Additional implants utilized during the procedure included a 14 mm × 80 mm stem extension, two Size 1T 5 mm tibial augments, a Size 1 5 mm posterior femoral augment, a Size 1 10 mm femoral augment, and a Size 1 5 mm distal femoral augment. The patient outcome was not further reported.

    Patient problems: Pain; Swelling/ Edema

    MAUDE report 50881081 ↗
  • InjuryFeb 18, 2025Naturally Worn; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Naturally Worn; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    AS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION A 59 Y/O PATIENT HAD A RIGHT KNEE REPLACEMENT ON (B)(6) 2011. APPROXIMATELY 6 YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL PROCEDURE THE PATIENT HAD A RIGHT KNEE REVISION ON (B)(6) 2017 DUE TO SEVERE ARTICULAR SURFACE WEAR.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Osteolysis; Scar Tissue; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 21401460 ↗

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