Catalog Number 356.823 |
Device Problem
Mechanical Jam (2983)
|
Patient Problem
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Date 06/02/2014 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Event Description
|
Device report from synthes (b)(4) reports an event in (b)(6) as follows: while locking the blade, the distal portion of the impactor (colored portion) was loosened and detached from the remaining impactor.But the surgeon tried to lock the blade with the impactor through some other method which resulted in damage of the protection sleeve and drill sleeve.After the surgery, it was found that the drill sleeve is not completely inserting into the protection sleeve and it jams.This is report 1 of 3 for complaint (b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Device used for treatment, not diagnosis.Device is an instrument and neither implanted nor explanted.Device is not distributed in the united states, but is similar to device marketed in the usa.No nonconformance reports were generated during production.Review of the device history record showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.The investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The returned part was investigated.The tip of the impactor got bent then the end is completely broken off.The handle is also quite worn indicating it had been used a considerable number of times.The shaft also shows signs of a lot of wear and usage.It is also marked as a loan instrument which further points to it being used in a lot of surgeries.The technique guide was referenced and there is a note stating ¿do not use unnecessary force when inserting the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation blade¿.Based on the age (manufactured march 2009) and examination of the article we can state that this type of damage is from a combination of mishandling and wear and tear and there is no inherent product fault.The drill sleeve and protection sleeve were not returned for analysis but a review of the device history records confirm that these articles were manufactured in october and november 2011 meeting all specifications.We would like to point out that as per guide ¿if the pfna blade cannot be locked, remove it and replace it with a new pfna blade¿ but according to the complaint report, the surgeon used some other method (unknown) which resulted in breakage of protection and drill sleeve.A review of our complaints history for all of the above articles show there have been no other complaints from these article numbers and lot numbers.No product fault could be determined with returned article.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|