If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Evaluation statement: the complaint device was received and evaluated.The reported failure could be confirmed from the visible mark on the trocar where it had cold welded with the sleeve.Historically, this type of failure has been attributed to user technique issue.The location of the trocar interlocking pins is superior to the mating portion of the sleeve.If the pins are not seated within these groves then the trocar is spinning within the guide sleeve causing enough heat and friction to cause the "welding" of the two parts.A batch record review has been conducted for this lot of 499 devices that were manufactured in 2014 and the results indicate that this batch of product was processed without incident related to the failure in this complaint and therefore there is no internally assignable cause for the reported problem.Further, a review into the depuy mitek complaints system revealed one similar complaint for this lot number for this device.No corrective action is required and no further action is warranted.However, depuy mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.This report is being filed from the remetrex complaint management system as required under mitek's corrective and preventative actions (capa) to file usa fda mdr missed malfunctions.
|
It was reported that the pin of one (1) rigidfix femoral 3.3 mm s/t pin gets stuck in the mandrel.Fins of the pin were broken.Further, it was reported that during drilling of one (1) sleeve, the external fins of the interlocking trocar broke and consequently, it was impossible to remove the interlocking trocar without leaving the sleeve out of the bone.Procedure was completed with use of another like device.There were no consequences to the patient.
|