Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Event date: unknown.Other¿partial udi# (b)(4) lot number unknown.Implant and explant dates: device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Initial reporter: reporting facility phone number is (b)(6).The subject device is expected to be returned to the synthes manufacturer for evaluation.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.The investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.Mfg date: unknown.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
Product investigation summary: the following complaint device was received for evaluation: one hammer guide for slide hammer (part: 357.22 / lot: 6624487).The complaint condition for the hammer guide was likely caused by the instrument being dropped prior to the procedure.The hammer guide for slide hammer (357.22) is a common trauma instrument referenced in cannulated retrograde/antegrade femoral nail, titanium cannulated tibial nail, and titanium trochanteric fixation nail technique guides.In each instance, the hammer guide can be utilized along with a slide hammer and driving cap for nail insertion and removal.The returned instrument was examined and the complaint condition was able to be confirmed as the threaded distal end of the instrument was found to be deformed on one section.No definitive root cause was able to be determined; however, the failure mode is consistent with the instrument possibly being dropped resulting in the complaint condition.The relevant drawing was reviewed.The design history was found to not impact the complaint condition.During the investigation, no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.The returned part was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.The complaint condition for the hammer guide was likely caused by the instrument being dropped prior to the procedure.During the investigation, no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Device history record review: manufacturing date: june 13, 2011 ¿ manufacturing location: (b)(4).No non-conformance reports were generated during production.Review of the device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of this product that would contribute to this complaint condition.Device 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.
|