Device is an instrument and is not implanted or explanted.(b)(6).Subject device has been received; no conclusions could be drawn as the device is entering the complaint system.A review of the device history records has been requested and is currently pending completion.Device 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.
|
Part 03.632.037, lot 7480168: manufacturing location: supplier- (b)(4).Manufacturing date: march 11, 2016.No non-conformance reports were generated during production.Review of the device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.(b)(6).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.
|
A product investigation was completed: the returned positioning instrument for polyaxial screw heads was examined and the complaint condition was able to be confirmed as the distal blocker was found to be missing.Evidence of laser welding was apparent on the distal portion of the outer shaft body.The blocker is only laser welded to half of the outer shaft body, making it vulnerable to breakage in the area of the laser weld.No definitive root cause was able to be determined however the failure mode is consistent with rough handling.Per the technique guide, the polyaxial head placement tool (03.632.037) is used in the matrix degenerative and deformity spine systems.The tool is used to retrieve a polyaxial head from an implant module and place it over a matrix bone screw.The technique guides state that, to ensure the polyaxial head is securely attached to the bone screw, the user is to gently lift up on the placement tool and angulate the polyaxial head.Relevant drawings for the returned instrument were reviewed (both current revision and from the time of manufacture): top-level, outer shaft w/ overmold and blocker.The design, materials and finishing processes were found to be appropriate for the intended use of these devices.A device history review was performed for the returned instrument¿s lot number and no material review reports, non-conformance reports or complaint-related issues were identified with the lot number which may have contributed to the complaint condition.During the investigation no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.A visual inspection, complaint history review, drawing review, and risk assessment review were performed as part of this investigation.No product design issues or discrepancies were observed.This complaint is confirmed.No definitive root cause was able to be determined however the failure mode is consistent with rough handling.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.
|