It was reported that; on (b)(6) 2016 surgeon operated performed the initial surgery.The surgeon indicated that the patient began to present discomfort so requested x-rays and found a loose blocker for the last screw.For this reason, he had to intervene for a second time on (b)(6) 2016, where only change blocker was performed.
|
Lot# e9g; visual inspection, device history review, complaint history review, risk assessment.Manufacturing records were reviewed for the corresponding lot and no relevant issues were identified.Inspection of the device revealed indentations on the base of the blocker that were representative of final tightening being performed.However, the indentations were not symmetric across the blocker, suggesting that the blocker was not optimally seated on the rod during final tightening.The most likely cause of the reported event is sub-optimal seating of the blocker on the rod during final tightening with the possible use of a non-stryker device contributing to the event.
|
It was reported that; on (b)(6) 2016 surgeon operated performed the initial surgery.The surgeon indicated that the patient began to present discomfort so requested x-rays and found a loose blocker for the last screw.For this reason, he had to intervene for a second time on (b)(6) 2016, where only change blocker was performed.
|