Udi: (b)(4).The perforator was not returned for evaluation, therefore, an evaluation of the device could not be performed.Lot number information has been provided, therefore, manufacturing records were reviewed, and found no anomalies.The cause(s) of the difficulty reported by the customer could not be determined.If additional relevant information becomes available in the future, this complaint will be re-opened, and the respective evaluation performed.Trends will be monitored for this and similar issues.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.
|
Complaint sample was returned for evaluation: dhr: a review of the lot records was conducted and there were no indications of problems that could have caused or contributed to the complaint.Failure analysis: visual examination of the part found that the head was broken from the stem of the implant.The failure was confirmed.Root cause: visual examination of the part determined that the potential causes identified for similar intraoperative pip fractures (improperly prepared oblique osteotomy, improper placement of the implant (e.G., impacting unsupported head with too much force), or improper implant size selection) likely contributed to this incident.
|