Skip to content

Optetrak 204-36-12Recalls & reported problems

Exactech, Inc. · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Optetrak (336)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

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

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 1 adverse event report that list this exact device (DI 10885862048936), received between Dec 9, 2024 and Dec 9, 2024 — classified as 1 injury.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Fracture” (1 report).

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 18, 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: 1 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.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Fracture1

Patient problems

  • Ambulation or Postural Difficulties1
  • Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available1
  • Balance Problems1
  • Discomfort1
  • Failure of Implant1
  • Osteolysis1
  • Pain1
  • Swelling/ Edema1

Recent adverse event reports

The 1 most recent of 1 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryDec 9, 2024Fracture; Fracture

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT A PATIENT HAD A RIGHT KNEE REVISION ON (B)(6) 2015, AND THEN EXPERIENCED A SECOND REVISION SURGICAL PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2016, APPROXIMATELY 11 MONTHS AFTER REVISION SURGERY. THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED OSTEOLYSIS, AMBULATION OR POSTURAL DIFFICULTIES, SWELLING/ EDEMA, PAIN, FAILURE OF IMPLANT, BALANCE PROBLEMS AND DISCOMFORT. SURGEON WAS PERFORMING REVISION RIGHT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY FOR WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE AN ASEPTICALLY LOOSE TIBIAL COMPONENT S/P REV RT TKA ON (B)(6) 2015. THE TIBIA APPEARED AND WAS FOUND TO BE WELL FIXED. THE FEMORAL COMPONENT, HOWEVER, WAS MANUALLY PUSHED ON BY THE SURGEON AND WAS NOTED TO BE LOOSE WHEN FLUID OOZED OUT THE SIDES FROM THE UNDERSIDE OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENT. THE SURGEON WENT TO THEN REMOVE THE FEMUR BY USING THE LOCKING FEMORAL HANDLE AND SLAP HAMMER AND THE FEMUR EASILY CAME OFF WITH ONE SLAP OF THE SLAP HAMMER. THE SURGEON IMMEDIATELY NOTICED THAT THE CC FEMORAL COMPONENT HAD COME OFF BUT THE STEM EXTENSION WAS NOT ATTACHED TO IT. THE FEMORAL STEM EXTENSION WAS STILL IN THE FEMORAL CANAL. GRAY METALLIC DEBRIS WAS NOTED ON THE FEMUR. A SCREW REMOVAL SYSTEM WAS USED TO EXTRACT THE STEM EXTENSION, IN W

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

    MAUDE report 20879885 ↗

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