Office staff person reported via phone july 23, 2015.The patient is doing well now.Integra has completed their internal investigation on june 30, 2015.The additional investigation activities included.Methods: evaluation of actual device, review of device history records, review of complaint history.Results: the device lot number was not provided, and the returned part is not marked with the lot number, therefore, a review of the manufacturing records of the ms121010 lots received since product inception in 2013 was performed five manufacturing lots were received during this time period.The review found one lot (10104-05, rev 7) where 7 of the (b)(4) pieces were rejected and returned to the supplier one staple was found with a gouge at the end of a leg and 6 more had the barbs rounded off and the leg lengths under the lower limit.The nonconforming units were returned to the supplier and not distributed.Based on this review, no product/manufacturing problems were identified that would have likely caused or contributed to the event.A review of the metasurg complaint files since 2013 showed three additional complaints for fractured staples.There have been (b)(4) ms121010 staples received.The complaint rate for fractured staples is (b)(4).Conclusion: no definite root cause could be concluded from the information provided.Previous investigations have determined staple fracture after surgery could be attributed to the surgical technique, including failure to use additional staples needed to stabilize the bone or to prevent excessive functional stress.Patient failure to follow post-operative recommendations is also a potential root cause.
|