Skip to content

Optetrak Logic 02-012-44-5015Recalls & 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
9
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
9
Recalls naming it
1

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 9 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10885862173744), received between Dec 4, 2020 and Jul 1, 2024 — classified as 9 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Naturally Worn” (6 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 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 1 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 1 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 Worn6
  • Unstable3
  • Insufficient Device Problem Information2
  • Activation, Positioning or Separation Problem1
  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
  • Detachment of Device or Device Component1
  • Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth1

Patient problems

  • Failure of Implant6
  • Synovitis5
  • Osteolysis3
  • Pain3
  • Scar Tissue3
  • Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available2
  • Implant Pain2
  • Swelling/ Edema2

Recent adverse event reports

The 9 most recent of 9 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJul 1, 2024Naturally Worn; Naturally Worn

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT APPROXIMATELY 43 MONTHS AFTER A LEFT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS PROSTHESIS WEARJOINT PAIN, SWELLING AND STIFFNESS. NO FURTHER ISSUES OR COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available; Implant Pain; Joint effusion; Osteolysis; Pain; Swelling/ Edema; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 19649267 ↗
  • InjuryApr 12, 2024Naturally Worn; Naturally Worn

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT A PATIENT HAD A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2018, AND THEN EXPERIENCED REVISION SURGICAL PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2023 APPROXIMATELY 5 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS AFTER INITIAL IMPLANT. OPERATIVE REPORT POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS; DEBRIS SYNOVITIS, SCAR TISSUE. NO IMAGES WERE PROVIDED. THERE IS NO OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Scar Tissue; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 19094384 ↗
  • InjuryJun 26, 2023Unstable; Naturally Worn; Insufficient Device Problem Information; Unstable; Naturally Worn; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    AS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THE PATIENT HAD A LEFT KNEE REVISION ON (B)(6) 2021. APPROXIMATELY 11 MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST REVISION THE PATIENT HAD A SECOND LEFT KNEE REVISION ON (B)(6) 2022 DUE TO PAIN, SWELLING, LOSS OF MOTION, SYNOVIAL SCARRING, SYNOVITIS, PREMATURE COMPONENT WEAR, INSTABILITY, FORMATION OF CYSTS; NEED FOR LEFT KNEE ASPIRATION PROCEDURES TO RELIEVE EXCESS ACCUMULATED SYNOVIAL FLUID. THERE IS NO OTHER PATIENT DEMOGRAPHIC OR MEDICAL HISTORY AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE OR PATIENT OUTCOME. THERE IS NO DEVICE RETURN. THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OR OTHER IMAGES OF THE DEVICE PROVIDED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available; Cyst(s); Insufficient Information; Joint Laxity; Pain; Scar Tissue; Swelling/ Edema; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 17200946 ↗
  • InjuryJun 16, 2023Detachment of Device or Device Component; Naturally Worn; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Naturally Worn; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    AS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION, A PATIENT HAD RIGHT KNEE REPLACEMENT ON (B)(6) 2014. THEY SUBSEQUENTLY UNDERWENT RIGHT KNEE REVISION ON (B)(6) 2023, APPROXIMATELY 9 YEARS AFTER THEIR INITIAL PROCEDURE. PREOPERATIVE X-RAYS SHOWED INCREASING LUCENCY ALONG THE ANTERIOR PORTION OF THE RIGHT FEMORAL PROSTHESIS, SUGGESTING LOOSENING, AS WELL AS SEVERE PROFOUND OSTEOLYSIS AND RADIOLUCENCIES AROUND BOTH COMPONENTS. INTRA-OPERATIVE FINDINGS REPORTED INCLUDE EXTENSIVE WEAR POSTERIORLY ON THE FEMUR AND SOME UNDERSURFACE WEAR. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE TIBIAL POLYETHYLENE COMPONENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE LOCKING MECHANISM AND THE METAL CAP COVERING THE TIBIAL TRAY HOLES HAD BECOME LOOSE. EXTENSIVE SYNOVITIS AND EXTENSIVE OSTEOLYSIS WERE ALSO REPORTED. THERE IS NO OTHER PATIENT DEMOGRAPHIC OR MEDICAL HISTORY AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE OR PATIENT OUTCOME. THERE IS NO DEVICE RETURN. THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OR OTHER IMAGES OF THE DEVICE PROVIDED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

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

    MAUDE report 17143902 ↗
  • InjuryJun 7, 2023Naturally Worn; Insufficient Device Problem Information; Naturally Worn; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT A PATIENT HAD A FIRST LEFT KNEE ARTHROPLASTY REVISION ON (B)(6) 2017 AND THEN APPROXIMATELY 5 YEARS LATER WAS REVISED FOR A SECOND TIME ON (B)(6) 2023 FOR OSTEOLYSIS, BONE LOSS, SYNOVITIS COMPONENT LOOSENING, POLYWEAR AND DEBONDING, INSTABILITY, JOINT PAIN, STIFFNESS, AND SWELLING, FOREIGN BODY REACTION SYNOVITIS: INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. THERE IS NO OTHER PATIENT DEMOGRAPHIC OR MEDICAL HISTORY AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE OR PATIENT OUTCOME. THERE IS NO DEVICE RETURN. THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OR OTHER IMAGES OF THE DEVICE PROVIDED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Osteolysis; Synovitis

    MAUDE report 17080679 ↗
  • InjurySep 9, 2022Naturally Worn; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Naturally Worn; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    IT WAS REPORTED VIA A LEGAL TOLLING AGREEMENT, THAT A MALE PATIENT WHO WAS INITIALLY IMPLANTED ON THEIR LEFT KNEE ON (B)(6) 2012, UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2022, APPROXIMATELY 9 YEARS 7 MONTHS POST THE INITIAL IMPLANT PROCEDURE FOR REASONS UNKNOWN. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. BASED ON REVIEW OF ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE REPORTED EVENT IS RELATED TO ANY DESIGN ISSUES. THE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT REVISION CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED, INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.

    Patient problems: Ambulation or Postural Difficulties; Discomfort; No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions; Pain

    MAUDE report 15392162 ↗
  • InjuryApr 18, 2021Activation, Positioning or Separation Problem; Activation, Positioning or Separation Problem

    AS REPORTED VIA LEGAL DOCUMENTATION, THIS PATIENT HAD LEFT KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2014. THEY UNDERWENT LEFT KNEE REVISION SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2020, APPROXIMATELY 6 YEARS 6 MONTHS AFTER THEIR PRIMARY SURGERY. (B)(6) 2020 OP REPORT POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: FAILED LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY SECONDARY TO ASEPTIC LOOSENING; POLYETHYLENE DISASSOCIATION. THE SURGEON NOTED THE POLYETHYLENE HAD DISASSOCIATED FROM THE TIBIAL BASEPLATE AND REMOVED MANUALLY. THE FEMORAL COMPONENT WAS LOOSELY AFFIXED AND REMOVED, LEAVING RESIDUAL CEMENT AND LARGE CAVITARY DEFECTS IN THE METAPHYSIS OF THE DISTAL FEMUR. THE TIBIAL COMPONENT WAS SOLIDLY AFFIXED AND REMOVED, EXTRACTING ALL CEMENT. THE PATIENT WAS AWAKENED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECOVERY ROOM. THERE IS NO OTHER PATIENT DEMOGRAPHIC OR MEDICAL HISTORY AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO DEVICE RETURN. THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OR OTHER IMAGES OF THE DEVICE PROVIDED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 11683319 ↗
  • InjuryDec 4, 2020Unstable; Unstable

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED A RIGHT KNEE REVISION SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2016, DUE TO INSTABILITY. INITIAL SURGERY DATE WAS (B)(6) 2015. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENT OR PATIENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 10946472 ↗
  • InjuryDec 4, 2020Unstable; Unstable

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED A RIGHT KNEE REVISION SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2016, DUE TO INSTABILITY. INITIAL SURGERY DATE WAS (B)(6) 2015. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENT OR PATIENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant

    MAUDE report 10946462 ↗

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