AS VEGA System PSRecalls & reported problems across all models

Aesculap AG · 28 models in the FDA device registry

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

Adverse event reports: 212
Deaths reported: 0
Injuries reported: 205
Recalls: 0

We found 28 models of AS VEGA System PS by Aesculap AG in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 212 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Apr 3, 2018 and Aug 14, 2026 — classified as 205 injuries, 7 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth” (137 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. Widely used products collect more reports, so totals can't be used to compare products or estimate failure rates. Only reports that name a model's exact device identifier are counted. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works

Reports received per month, all models

Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported AS VEGA System PS problems

Device problems

Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth137
Patient-Device Incompatibility55
Patient Device Interaction Problem11
Loose or Intermittent Connection7
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem5
Mechanical Problem3

Patient problems

Failure of Implant84
Swelling/ Edema62
Ambulation or Postural Difficulties57
Joint Laxity51
Implant Pain48
Pain44
Insufficient Information12
Synovitis8

AS VEGA System PS models

28 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.

AS VEGA System® PS NX055Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
27 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX053Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
22 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX031Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
20 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX009Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
17 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX051Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
17 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX011Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
16 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX033Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
13 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX029Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
11 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX049Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
10 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX054Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
10 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX013Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
9 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX056Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
5 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX057Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
5 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX052Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
4 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX028Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
3 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX030Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
3 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX007Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX012Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX016Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX027Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX032Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX034Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX058Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX059Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
2 reports
AS VEGA System® PS NX008Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
1 report
AS VEGA System® PS NX014Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
1 report
AS VEGA System® PS NX018Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
1 report
AS VEGA System® PS NX036Z
PROSTHESIS, KNEE, PATELLOFEMOROTIBIAL, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, CEMENTED, POLYMER/METAL/POLYMER
1 report

Recent AS VEGA System PS adverse event reports

The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

InjuryAug 14, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced postoperative loosening and instability following a right total knee arthroplasty. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a right total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2021. The patient subsequently developed loosening of the right total knee arthroplasty with gross instability. On December 23, 2024, the patient underwent revision right total knee arthroplasty involving the femoral and tibial components. The preoperative and postoperative diagnoses were documented as right knee loose total knee arthroplasty with gross instability. During the revision procedure, the femoral component was visualized and reportedly came right off when grasped. The tibial prosthesis was loosened and removed easily with minimal bone loss. The patellar button was also assessed intraoperatively and was documented to be loose. The femur and tibia were prepared for revision components. Following trialing, the knee demonstrated full range of motion with excellent stability to varus and valgus stress. The revision components were cemented into place using a third-generation cement technique. The patient was awakened from surgery an
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50260854 ↗
InjuryAug 14, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced postoperative loosening and instability following a right total knee arthroplasty. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a right total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2021. The patient subsequently developed loosening of the right total knee arthroplasty with gross instability. On (b)(6) 2024, the patient underwent revision right total knee arthroplasty involving the femoral and tibial components. The preoperative and postoperative diagnoses were documented as right knee loose total knee arthroplasty with gross instability. During the revision procedure, the femoral component was visualized and reportedly came right off when grasped. The tibial prosthesis was loosened and removed easily with minimal bone loss. The patellar button was also assessed intraoperatively and was documented to be loose. The femur and tibia were prepared for revision components. Following trialing, the knee demonstrated full range of motion with excellent stability to varus and valgus stress. The revision components were cemented into place using a third-generation cement technique. The patient was awakened from surgery and take
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50260852 ↗
InjuryAug 14, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced postoperative loosening following a left total knee arthroplasty. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a left total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2021. On (b)(6) 2024, the patient underwent revision of the left patellar component for aseptic loosening. The operative report documented that the femoral and tibial components were inspected and appeared to have no loosening. The patellar button was evaluated, and when an osteotome was placed at the medial side of the button, the button reportedly popped out. The remaining cement was removed from the patella and the patella was resurfaced to allow for improved tracking. No intraoperative complications were reported, and the patient was taken to recovery in stable condition. Subsequent records documented further concerns involving the left total knee prosthesis. At a (b)(6) 2025 postoperative evaluation, radiographs demonstrated a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement with the patella resurfaced. The femoral component appeared loose, with severe periprosthetic osteolysis about the femur. The patient was assessed with mechanical loosening and peripros
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50260357 ↗
InjuryAug 14, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced postoperative loosening following a left total knee arthroplasty. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a left total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2021. On (b)(6) 2024, the patient underwent revision of the left patellar component for aseptic loosening. The operative report documented that the femoral and tibial components were inspected and appeared to have no loosening. The patellar button was evaluated, and when an osteotome was placed at the medial side of the button, the button reportedly popped out. The remaining cement was removed from the patella and the patella was resurfaced to allow for improved tracking. No intraoperative complications were reported, and the patient was taken to recovery in stable condition. Subsequent records documented further concerns involving the left total knee prosthesis. At a (b)(6) 2025 postoperative evaluation, radiographs demonstrated a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement with the patella resurfaced. The femoral component appeared loose, with severe periprosthetic osteolysis about the femur. The patient was assessed with mechanical loosening and peripros
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50260356 ↗
InjuryAug 14, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced loosening of the left knee prosthesis. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a left total knee arthroplasty on (b)(6) 2022, for left knee osteoarthritis. The procedure utilized an Aesculap Vega system. The operative report documented that the procedure was completed without reported intraoperative complications. Intraoperative trialing demonstrated full extension and flexion with appropriate patellar tracking. The implants were placed using third-generation cement technique, and the patient was taken to the post-anesthesia care unit in stable condition. On (b)(6) 2026, the patient was evaluated for left knee pain. The assessment included mechanical loosening of the internal left knee prosthetic joint. A triple-phase bone scan was reported as normal with no prosthetic loosening, fracture, or osteomyelitis; however, the treating physician documented disagreement with the radiology interpretation, noting increased uptake along the patellar component and underneath the femoral component. The patient was reportedly tender in this area, and the physician documented that the findings were consistent with l
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50258558 ↗
InjuryJul 27, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
An outside law firm reported that a patient experienced loosening of the left knee prosthesis. According to the available medical records, the patient underwent a left total knee arthroplasty on (B)(6) 2022, for left knee osteoarthritis. The procedure utilized an Aesculap Vega system. The operative report documented that the procedure was completed without reported intraoperative complications. Intraoperative trialing demonstrated full extension and flexion with appropriate patellar tracking. The implants were placed using third-generation cement technique, and the patient was taken to the post-anesthesia care unit in stable condition. On (B)(6) 2026, the patient was evaluated for left knee pain. The assessment included mechanical loosening of the internal left knee prosthetic joint. A triple-phase bone scan was reported as normal with no prosthetic loosening, fracture, or osteomyelitis; however, the treating physician documented disagreement with the radiology interpretation, noting increased uptake along the patellar component and underneath the femoral component. The patient was reportedly tender in this area, and the physician documented that the findings were consistent with l
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50039948 ↗
InjuryJun 9, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A LEFT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT (TKR). ACCORDING TO CLINICAL DOCUMENTATION, THE PATIENT INITIALLY UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT ON (B)(6), 2022. FOLLOWING THE TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED PERSISTENT SYMPTOMS, INCLUDING PAIN, INSTABILITY, RECURRENT BUCKLING, AND LIMITED FUNCTION OF THE LEFT KNEE. AN OFFICE VISIT DATED (B)(6), 2023 DOCUMENTED 3+ EFFUSION AND LATERAL LAXITY, WITH CONCERN FOR INSTABILITY. DUE TO ONGOING SYMPTOMS, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT REVISION LEFT KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6), 2023. OPERATIVE FINDINGS INCLUDED LOOSENING OF THE TIBIAL COMPONENT WITH OBSERVED MICROMOTION. THE PROCEDURE INVOLVED REMOVAL OF THE LOOSENED COMPONENT AND IMPLANTATION OF A REVISED TIBIAL COMPONENT WITH POLYETHYLENE INSERT. NO INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. THIS REPORT IS FILED UNDER AIS REFERENCE XC 100042032 CC 400760780.
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25443845 ↗
InjuryJun 8, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED COMPLICATIONS WITH AN AESCULAP KNEE IMPLANT. REPORTEDLY THE FEMORAL COMPONENT WAS "GROSSLY LOOSE" AND "REMOVED BY HAND". THE TIBIAL COMPONENT WAS ALSO "GROSSLY LOOSE" AND "LIFTED OUT OF THE CEMENT MANTLE" THE CEMENT MANTLE REMAINED ADHERED TO THE BONES AND HAD TO BE EXTRACTED DURING THE REVISION SURGERY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BUT NOT YET PROVIDED. THIS REPORT IS FILED UNDER AIS REFERENCE (B)(4).
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25431195 ↗
InjuryJun 8, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED COMPLICATIONS WITH AN AESCULAP KNEE IMPLANT. REPORTEDLY THE FEMORAL COMPONENT WAS "GROSSLY LOOSE" AND "REMOVED BY HAND". THE TIBIAL COMPONENT WAS ALSO "GROSSLY LOOSE" AND "LIFTED OUT OF THE CEMENT MANTLE" THE CEMENT MANTLE REMAINED ADHERED TO THE BONES AND HAD TO BE EXTRACTED DURING THE REVISION SURGERY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BUT NOT YET PROVIDED. THIS REPORT IS FILED UNDER AIS REFERENCE (B)(4).
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25431192 ↗
InjuryJun 5, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED ONGOING COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A VEGA KNEE IMPLANT. A REVISION SURGERY HAS NOT YET BEEN SCHEDULED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BUT NOT YET PROVIDED. THIS REPORT IS FOR THE LEFT KNEE. THIS REPORT IS FILED UNDER AIS REFERENCE (B)(4).
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25414762 ↗
InjuryMay 1, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
A LAW FIRM REPORTS THAT A PATIENT ALLEGES POST-OPERATIVE LOOSENING OF AESCULAP KNEE IMPLANT. REPORTEDLY THERE WAS ALLEGED PAIN AND SWELLING 1 YEAR, 5 MONTHS POST OPERATIVE AFTER THE REVISION OF THE LEFT KNEE. THE ADVERSE EVENT IS FILED UNDER AIS REFERENCE: (B)(4).
Patient problems: Implant Pain
MAUDE report 25055810 ↗
InjuryMay 1, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED ONGOING ISSUES FOLLOWING A LEFT KNEE PROSTHESIS. ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE RECORDS, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2017, FOR DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2021. BOTH PROCEDURES WERE REPORTED TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. POSTOPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT INITIALLY REPORTED IMPROVEMENT. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2021, THE PATIENT WAS NOTED TO BE DOING WELL WITHOUT PAIN OR COMPLAINTS. ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED A FALL WITH SUBSEQUENT LEFT KNEE PAIN, DECREASED RANGE OF MOTION, AND INSTABILITY. IMAGING AND CLINICAL FINDINGS AT THAT TIME NOTED DEGENERATIVE CHANGES AND LIGAMENTOUS LAXITY. THE PATIENT CONTINUED TO REPORT PERSISTENT KNEE SYMPTOMS DESPITE CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING INJECTIONS. ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED ONGOING KNEE PAIN; IMAGING AT THAT TIME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LOOSENING. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2026, IMAGING DEMONSTRATED A LEFT TOTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS IN PLACE WITH FINDINGS OF MECHANICAL LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENT, ASSOCIATED LUCENCY, AND INSTABILITY. CLINICAL EXAMIN
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25055703 ↗
InjuryMay 1, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED ONGOING ISSUES FOLLOWING A LEFT KNEE PROSTHESIS. ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE RECORDS, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2017, FOR DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2021. BOTH PROCEDURES WERE REPORTED TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. POSTOPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT INITIALLY REPORTED IMPROVEMENT. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2021, THE PATIENT WAS NOTED TO BE DOING WELL WITHOUT PAIN OR COMPLAINTS. ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED A FALL WITH SUBSEQUENT LEFT KNEE PAIN, DECREASED RANGE OF MOTION, AND INSTABILITY. IMAGING AND CLINICAL FINDINGS AT THAT TIME NOTED DEGENERATIVE CHANGES AND LIGAMENTOUS LAXITY. THE PATIENT CONTINUED TO REPORT PERSISTENT KNEE SYMPTOMS DESPITE CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING INJECTIONS. ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED ONGOING KNEE PAIN; IMAGING AT THAT TIME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LOOSENING. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2026, IMAGING DEMONSTRATED A LEFT TOTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS IN PLACE WITH FINDINGS OF MECHANICAL LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENT, ASSOCIATED LUCENCY, AND INSTABILITY. CLINICAL EXAMIN
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 25055702 ↗
InjuryApr 27, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED ONGOING ISSUES FOLLOWING A LEFT KNEE PROSTHESIS. ACCORDING TO THE OPERATIVE REPORT, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A LEFT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2021 FOR DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. POSTOPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT INITIALLY REPORTED IMPROVEMENT, WITH FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2021 NOTING THAT THE PATIENT WAS DOING WELL WITH NO PAIN OR COMPLAINTS. HOWEVER, BY(B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED A FALL WITH SUBSEQUENT LEFT KNEE PAIN, DECREASED RANGE OF MOTION, AND LIGAMENTOUS INSTABILITY. IMAGING AND CLINICAL FINDINGS AT THAT TIME NOTED DEGENERATIVE CHANGES AND LAXITY. THE PATIENT CONTINUED TO REPORT PERSISTENT KNEE SYMPTOMS DESPITE CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING INJECTIONS. BY (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED ONGOING KNEE PAIN, THOUGH IMAGING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LOOSENING AT THAT TIME. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6), 2026, IMAGING DEMONSTRATED A LEFT TOTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS IN PLACE WITH FINDINGS OF MECHANICAL LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENT, ASSOCIATED LUCENCY, AND INSTABILITY. CLINICAL EXAMINATION CONFIRMED LIGAMENTOUS LAXITY, EFFUSION, AND PAIN. DIAGNOSES INCLUDED MECHANI
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 24999163 ↗
InjuryApr 27, 2026Patient-Device Incompatibility
AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM REPORTED THAT A PATIENT EXPERIENCED ONGOING ISSUES INVOLVING THE RIGHT KNEE FOLLOWING DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE AND SUBSEQUENT SURGICAL INTERVENTION. ACCORDING TO CLINICAL DOCUMENTATION, THE PATIENT PRESENTED ON (B)(6) 2021 WITH CHRONIC RIGHT KNEE PAIN DUE TO END-STAGE OSTEOARTHRITIS, HAVING FAILED CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT INCLUDING MULTIPLE INJECTIONS. A RIGHT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WAS RECOMMENDED. THE PATIENT SUBSEQUENTLY UNDERWENT A RIGHT TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY ON (B)(6) 2021. OPERATIVE RECORDS INDICATE THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS, WITH PROPER PLACEMENT OF PROSTHETIC COMPONENTS AND STABLE RANGE OF MOTION ACHIEVED INTRAOPERATIVELY. FOLLOWING SURGERY, THE PATIENT WAS SEEN ON (B)(6) 2021 AFTER A REPORTED FALL, WITH CONTINUED PAIN BUT NO IMMEDIATE EVIDENCE OF SURGICAL FAILURE. AT FOLLOW-UP ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT WAS NOTED TO BE RECOVERING FAIRLY WELL, THOUGH SHE HAD DIFFICULTY ATTENDING PHYSICAL THERAPY AND CONTINUED TO HAVE WEAKNESS. ON (B)(6) 2022, THE PATIENT REPORTED ONGOING KNEE PAIN WITH EPISODES OF INSTABILITY AND FALLS, WITH EXAMINATION NOTING LIGAMENTOUS LAXITY. ADDITIONAL TREATMENT INCLUDED A CORTICOSTEROID I
Patient problems: Failure of Implant
MAUDE report 24998745 ↗

Other Aesculap AG products

All Aesculap AG devices →

Sources and updates

Models: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026. Models are grouped by the brand name the manufacturer registered.
Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026
Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
Page last rebuilt: Oct 16, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.

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