It was reported that, during a thr surgery, upon opening the box labeled for one (1) oxinium fem hd 12/14 32mm +4, it was noticed that it contained an oxinium fem hd 12/14 36mm +4 instead.Both the packaging and the stickers inside indicated that the implant was an oxinium fem hd 12/14 32mm +4.The procedure was resumed without any delay, using an s+n back-up device.No injuries were reported as a consequence of this issue.
|
H3, h6: the devices were not returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.However, the photographs were reviewed and revealed the label for oxinium fem hd 12/14 32mm +4, however the implant is an oxinium femoral head 12/14 taper 36 mm.According with the label specifications, all labels should include the correct part number, batch number and product name.A review of the production orders did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.However, a historical review concluded that a similar event was identified and it was determined that the root causes of this event were sharing of the vision system, unclear procedures around the vision system process and line clearance versus perceived order segregation.The following corrective actions are being taken: determine vision system capability needs and, based on those needs, determine how many machines need software upgrades, service agreements or replacement.Based on that determination, develop a proposal for capital expenditure and create a plan for implementation of these upgrades or replacements, from initial purchase to all vision systems operational, programmed and in production.As additional complaints were received for this failure mode, the event was re-evaluated by the quality engineering team.However, as there were previous escalated actions that still cover this issue, no further escalation was required.A review of complaint history for the part numbers over the past 12 months and for the batch numbers based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.At this time, we do have evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet specifications at the time of manufacture.Should the devices or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|