|
Device Problem
Failure to Advance (2524)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 10/24/2019 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This report is for an unknown nail.Part and lot numbers are unknown; udi number is unknown.Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.Reporter is a synthes employee.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.Product was not returned.Based on the information available, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.This complaint will be accounted for and monitored via post market surveillance activities.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.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.
|
|
Event Description
|
Device report from synthes reports an event in (b)(6) as follows: it was reported on (b)(6) 2019 during a tns surgery, surgical procedure is initiated prior to planning with the specialist, the nail to be placed is mounted, the medullary canal is rhymed, the nail is inserted over the protection sheath and additionally the connection piece for the insertion arch is screwed and it is hammered on it to introduce the nail which, upon impact, starts leaving the nail in the middle, the specialist follows the impact directly on the insertion arch on a compress, finishing the complete insertion of the nail, the specialist proceeds to perform the distal block.Under radiographic control, the specialist observes the fracture focus which is distalized with a wide gaf, so it has to be retrospected to reduce the fracture, as we no longer had the connection piece because it was damaged, i told the specialist that the instruments have a compression piece to help reduce the fracture, the doctor reports a bad experience in the handling of this instrument because on one occasion he had used it and the bolt had been bent and for this case the fracture was very separated, where the doctor concludes that the best option is to hit directly with several compresses on the insertion arch, resulting in the damage of the same, so the proximal freehand block was performed.Talking to the specialist assesses what happened and says that the only way to reach the complete reduction of the fracture was the way it was done because otherwise the results would not be favorable for the patient and at the time it was important concomitant devices reported: unknown hammer (part# unknown, lot# unknown, quantity# 1), unknown tibial nail (part# unknown, lot# unknown, quantity# 1).This complaint involves two (2) devices.This is 1 of 1 for report (b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Depuy synthes is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which depuy synthes has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, depuy synthes or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.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.
|
|
Event Description
|
This is report 3 of 3 for (b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Depuy synthes is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which depuy synthes has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, depuy synthes or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.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.
|
|
Event Description
|
Concomitant device reported: unknown hammer (part# unknown, lot# unknown, quantity# 1).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Depuy synthes is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which depuy synthes has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, depuy synthes or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.H11: corrected data: g4: awareness date reported on follow up 2 report as november 13, 2019 but should have been december 05, 2019.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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|