Skip to content

Optetrak Logic 02-012-49-1509Recalls & reported problems

Exactech, Inc. · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Optetrak Logic (408)

Data updated Oct 18, 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
3
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
3
Recalls naming it
1

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 3 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10885862144409), received between Jun 19, 2020 and May 1, 2024 — classified as 3 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Naturally Worn” (3 reports).

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

1 other recall cover devices cleared under the same FDA submission (K111400); 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 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: 1 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: 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. Aug 30, 2021Class IIOpen, Classified

    Inserts were packaged in vacuum bags that lacked an additional oxygen barrier layer.

    Z-0021-2022 · Root cause: Process control · Recall details · FDA record ↗

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Naturally Worn3

Patient problems

  • Failure of Implant2
  • Insufficient Information1
  • Pain1
  • Swelling/ Edema1

Recent adverse event reports

The 3 most recent of 3 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryMay 1, 2024Naturally Worn; Naturally Worn

    AS REPORTED, SIX YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL LEFT THA SURGERY, THE 64 YEAR OLD FEMALE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF KNEE SWELLING AND PAIN. THE SURGEON DIAGNOSED WEAR OF THE TIBIAL INSERT AND A REVISION WAS PERFORMED ON AN UNKNOWN DATE. BREAKAGE AND WEAR WAS OBSERVED IN THE RETRIEVED TIBIAL INSERT. NO METALLOSIS WAS FOUND. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE TIBIAL TRAY. ALL PROLIFERATIVE TISSUE WAS REMOVED AND ONLY THE TIBIAL INSERT WAS REPLACED. ALL PARTS/PIECES WERE REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT. THERE WAS NO REPORTED SURGICAL DELAY/PROLONGATION. THE PATIENT WAS LAST KNOWN TO BE IN STABLE CONDITION FOLLOWING THE EVENT.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Pain; Swelling/ Edema

    MAUDE report 19219940 ↗
  • InjuryJul 17, 2023Naturally Worn; Naturally Worn

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A FEMALE PATIENT, INITIAL RIGHT KNEE IMPLANTED ON (B)(6) 2019, UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2023, APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS POST THE INITIAL PROCEDURE. THE REVISION WAS DUE TO POLY WEAR. THE LINER WAS EXCHANGED. THERE WERE NO SURGICAL DELAYS OR DEVICE BREAKAGES DURING THE PROCEDURE. THE PATIENT WAS LAST KNOWN TO BE IN STABLE CONDITION FOLLOWING THE EVENT. NO PATIENT HISTORY, X-RAYS, OR DEVICE IMAGES WERE PROVIDED. THE EXPLANTED DEVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RETURN. THE HOSPITAL DISPOSED OF THE DEVICE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION.

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 17333907 ↗
  • InjuryJun 19, 2020Naturally Worn; Naturally Worn

    AS REPORTED, APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS POSTOP THE INITIAL IMPLANT, THE (B)(6) Y/O FEMALE PATIENT, PREVIOUSLY TREATED FOR RIGHT KNEE WINDSWEPT DEFORMITY, HAD SEVERE RIGHT KNEE PAIN, THEN A PATELLOFEMORAL ARTHROSIS WAS SUSPECTED BY THE X-RAY FINDINGS. THE SURGEON PREFERS THE SURGICAL PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT RESURFACING PATELLA FOR PRIMARY KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY AND HE HAS EXCELLENT LONG-TERM CLINICAL RESULTS FOR THIS PHILOSOPHY, HOWEVER, HE PLANNED TO RESURFACE THE PATELLA USING OUR PATELLA COMPONENT FOR THIS CASE. WHEN THE KNEE WAS EXPOSED, ABNORMAL PROLIFERATIVE SYNOVIUM WAS SEEN AROUND THE KNEE, AND REMARKABLE POLYETHYLENE WEAR OF THE TIBIAL INSERT WAS ALSO FOUND AT THE ANTERO-LATERAL PART OF THE INSERT. THEN HE REMOVED THE INSERT TO CHECK THE CONDITION OF POSTERIOR ASPECT OF THE KNEE, HE CONFIRMED THAT POSTER-MEDICAL PART OF THE INSERT WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY DELAMINATION WEAR. AS HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT USING SAME TYPE TO THE SLOPED INSERT, HE PERFORMED TRIAL REDUCTION USING THE NEUTRAL INSERT OF 9 MM THICKNESS AND DECIDED TO USE IT FOR THIS REPLACEMENT. HE ALSO ADDED V-SHAPE ARTHROTOMY TO ADDRESS THE JOINT STIFFNESS IN FLEXION. THE SURGERY WAS FINISHED INSERTING THE NEUTRA

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 10177026 ↗

Recalls under the same FDA submission

These recalls involve devices cleared under K111400. One submission often covers many models, so check the product and lot details in each record.

  • Z-0583-2024 · Nov 21, 2023 · Open, Classified
    Exactech Optetrak Logic Knee System, Catalog Numbers: a) 02-012-47-3011, b) 02-012-47-5009, c) 02-012-47-5011, d) 02-012-65-3013

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