(b)(6).The patient¿s exact age is unknown.The description of event(s) indicated that the patient was over 80 years old; however, the x-ray images received seem to indicate the patient was (b)(6).The complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.(b)(6).Investigation could not be completed and no conclusion could be drawn as no device was returned.Device history record review: manufacturing location: (b)(4) - manufacturing date: june 28, 2011.No non-conformance reports were generated during production that would contribute to the complaint condition.The review of the device history record shows that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to the complaint condition.Device 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.
|
Device report from synthes (b)(4) reports an event in (b)(6) as follows: it was reported that a patient underwent revision on (b)(6) 2016 due to reports of pain and wire breakage.The patient was originally treated for a fractured right patella via fixation on (b)(6) 2015.On an unknown date, the patient reportedly began experiencing pain.X-rays captured on (b)(6) 2016 identified breakage of the implanted cerclage wire coil.The issue was addressed during the revision procedure; however, additional information pertaining to the outcome of that procedure is unknown.This report is 1 of 1 for (b)(4).
|