Subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.A device history review was conducted.The report indicates that the device history record was reviewed and found non conformant to good documentation practices for the lack of release signature of the blank dhr: this has no relation with the complained defect.No other anomaly was detected during dhr review.No ncrs were generated during production.There were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.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.
|
Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Additional narrative: an evaluation was performed on the returned device.A broken plate was received.Based on the topography of the fracture surface, the unilateral fracture and the further crack, we can conclude that the implant was subjected to high dynamic bending loads.Constant alternating load cycles led to the fatigue of the material, then to a first crack and finally to the overload respectively to the fatigue fracture of the condylar plate.The implant could not resist the applied force which finally led to the material overload i fatigue failure.A failure resulting from either a material defect or the manufacturing process can be excluded.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|