The products were not returned for evaluation, however the patient's scans, photographs of the procedure, and manufacturing process for the implants were evaluated by the manufacturer.Based on the evaluation, the complaint was confirmed through intraoperative pictures.The most-likely, underlying cause was determined to be the patient's anatomy between the time of the ct scan and the time of the surgery.The ct scan was 285 days old at the time of the surgery.Based on the review of the manufacturing process during the evaluation, the scans determined that the implants were manufactured according to design requirements provided by the customer and met all acceptance requirements.Additionally, "the digital mold, mold of mold, and implant files were all examined and no design flaws were found.The parts were examined to ensure no gaps or overlaps existed between parts that could lead to the caste implant being too large or different from the implant design." also, "scan date was (b)(6) 2015 and the surgery date was (b)(6) 2016.No post op scans were provided for verification.The time between the scan data and surgery may have allowed for bone growth or movement resulting in the improper fit of the implant." this is report 2 of 2 for the same event.Report 1 of 2 is reported on mfr #0001032347-2016-00173-1.
|