Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.A device history record review was performed for the subject device lot.The review showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.No non-conformances were generated during the production of the subject device.The subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
A product investigation was completed: one application instrument for sternal zipfix (part number 03.501.080, lot number 8215969) was received with the complaint that the screw that holds the spring in place on the back has come undone.The complaint condition is confirmed as the end cap and spring were found to be loose and could be disassembled by hand.A review of the current design drawing/manufactured revision for the top level assembly was performed.The following component drawings were also reviewed; pusher assembly, end cap component, and pusher sleeve component.During the design review it was determined that there was a change to revise the pusher assembly in may 2013 to add that the end cap is to be secured.The change was made after the manufacture date of the received device.Thus, the design likely impacted to complaint condition.No additional issues or discrepancies were observed and the current design was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.Per the technique guide, this device is part of the sternal zipfix system and it is used to tension and cut the zipfix implants.Proper use and maintenance is addressed in technique guide.The returned device was received intact with a few scratches on the surface of the device.The end cap, which retains the spring, was found to be loose and could be disassembled by hand.Thus, the complaint condition is confirmed, consistent with the reported condition, and can be replicated as the spring is not retained as intended.The remaining functionality was tested and no further issues were determined.When the cutting mechanism is locked, the trigger compresses and releases as intended and all components move fully through their range of motion.When the cutting mechanism is unlocked, the lever arm functions as intended and the trigger is locked as intended so that the device would not cut with the implant under tension.Thus, the complaint condition was possibly a result of a design deficiency that has been addressed.No additional issues or discrepancies were observed and the current design was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.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.
|