This medwatch is submitted to send the result of the investigation of this complaint.Although it was mentioned by the reporter that product will be returned , it was never received by manufacturer for examination.The review of the device history records and traceability did not reveal any non-conformances to specifications or deviations in procedures that might have contributed to the reported event.It's important to highlight as it was mentioned in the previous report , that three prothesis were related to this case however the reporter didn't clarify which implant corresponds to which event.Clarification were requested but no answer received.Creation of this report was according to the first chronological description provided by the reporter.The other implants potentially related to this event are : mb3555, lot number 5292322 ; expiry date : 01/05/2022 / mft date 20/06/2017; mb35555, lot number 5301863 ; expiry date 01/10/2022 / mft date 28/11/2017.From information provided on the zper and on the email, based on the product history records, the review of the case and the recurrence of this type of event for this implant, the likely cause for the event is a mistake in the choice of the size of the implant.The surgeon chose an implant with no adequate hight and when he was inserting it, he realized that it was not the right size.So he decided to implanted a new implant with reference mb3556.Indeed , as mentioned in the surgical techniques ( step 4 to 8) there are different phases that surgeon has to follow before inserting the prothesis, which prevent this kind of mishandling.The investigation found no evidence to indicate device issue.The root cause is a user error.
|