This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.This report is for an unknown implant.Part and lot number are unknown.Without the specific part number; the expiration date, udi number, 510-k number, manufacturing site name, and device manufacture date are unknown.Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.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.The complaint device is not being returned; the availability of the device is unknown, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.This complaint file was opened to document complaints derived through a journal article review.The journal article review indicated depuy mitek product failure(s).Since there was no contact information, no follow-up attempts could be performed.It is unknown if complaints derived from this journal article were previously reported and documented in the depuy mitek complaint system at the time of occurrence as no product code/lot number information was provided to perform the search.Since no lot number was provided, a manufacturing record evaluation or sterile load review could not be conducted.As part of depuy mitek¿s quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.With the information provided, and without the complaint device to evaluate, we cannot determine a root cause for the reported problem.If any additional information is obtained, this complaint will be re-opened to capture that information.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.Depuy mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.
|
This file is a review of the following journal article: wei, d., et al (2019) treatment of doyle type of brachydactyly by different hand methods bed effect ratio study.Zhejiang surgical journal, vol.24, no.5, pages 1018-1019 (china).The study emphasizes on the analysis of the bed effect of different hand methods in the treatment of doyle a finger.The patients evaluated on course of this study: 66 patients.The article describes the following procedure: hand surgery.The devices involved were: unknown mtk product.Complications described: after hand treatment, there were 3 cases of nail deformity, 2 cases of infection, 2 cases of exposure, antibiotics and aseptic treatment of infection.
|