Evaluation revealed all three reported star implants to be primary products.No further associated products were reported.The reported products were not available to stryker kiel (¿clinical study¿).The product data (catalogue numbers and lot codes) were not provided.Thus, neither a physical examination nor a product history review was possible in this case.However, the reported issue was classified being not device related by a consulting health care professional.The event was filed during the ¿2-year post-approval study to investigate the star ankle under actual conditions of use¿ ((b)(4)) and has been classified as an adverse event (ae) ¿ relationship to the implant: unrelated.It was reported: "subject [(b)(6)-year-old male patient] experienced wound dehiscence on (b)(6) 2017 following receipt of star ankle on right ankle on (b)(6) 2017.Wound washed and subject treated with antibiotics.Subject placed in cam boot.Event resolved on (b)(6) 2017." the reported issue was evaluated by a health care professional to define whether the products did contribute to the event.The hcp defined the case as ae, according to procedure (b)(4)¿clinical investigation - adverse event reporting¿ a ae (adverse event) is non-device related.Therefore, a relationship between the implants and the reported event can be excluded.Referring to the above a review of the event in line with ¿(b)(4) infection complaints checklist investigator¿ was not expedient.Likewise, the completed ¿(b)(4) infection complaints checklist customer¿ was deemed not necessary in this case.Review of the complaint history, risk analysis and capa databases was deemed dispensable since the products were not suspected to have contributed to the reported event.Based on the above observations the event is not linked to a deficiency of a device but is rather considered patient related.No non-conformity was identified.
|