Device was used for treatment and not for diagnosis.On (b)(6) 2018, a distributor sales representative informed medcad that the accushape patient-specific implant did not provide adequate defect coverage.According to the complainant, there was more retraction in the temporalis region of the defect than the surgeon had requested.Review of production records for the case show that upon review of the implant design, the surgeon requested additional retraction from the patient's native bone.Review of the design file shows that the implant was redesigned and manufactured with more retraction than the surgeon requested.On (b)(6)2018, the complainant informed medcad that the implant was not used to complete the surgery on (b)(6) 2018, due to unintended fit.According to the complainant, surgery was successfully completed using titanium mesh instead of the accushape cranial implant.If additional information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|