Catalog Number 283812 |
Device Problems
Electrical /Electronic Property Problem (1198); Overheating of Device (1437)
|
Patient Problem
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was 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.H10 additional narrative: udi: (b)(4).The serial number was unknown.D4, g1, h4: the serial number was unknown; therefore, the manufacturing site name and device manufacture date were unknown.To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported by the healthcare professional in sweden that during an unknown procedure on an unknown date, it was observed that the fms tornado micro ii hand controlled shaver handpiece device became warm while in use and had an error code : fc014.It was unknown if and how the procedure was completed.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay reported.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was 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.H10 additional narrative: d4: the serial number was reported unknown on the initial report; and has been updated accordingly.Therefore, udi: (b)(6).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.H4: the device manufacture date was reported as unknown on the initial report.Please note that the date of manufacture has been updated accordingly.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.Device was 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.The complaint device was received at the r&d and evaluated.During the analysis of the device, it was deemed that the motor presented a failure; however, as the motor cannot be disassembled to perform a repair, the devices must be discarded.The front seal of the motor is allowing saline to enter the motor during use.This causes the handpiece to stop functioning.This fault affects the reliability of the handpiece but does not adversely impact patient safety.Manufacturing record evaluation (mre) is not needed since the device falls into capa that was opened due to the motor cannot be disassembled to perform a repair.The device is not serviceable.The root cause is attributed to manufacturing involving a design change.There is a capa associated with this product code, most of the complaints received to-date are related to failed motors with evidence of water intrusion and manifested as malfunctioning or seized motors, therefore; the devices are under service discontinuation.This product issue is already being addressed by depuy quality system.Further investigation and assessment are covered under the capa in our quality system.Depuy synthes mitek will continue to monitor additional complaint information for potential safety signals through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|