Catalog Number 03.501.080 |
Device Problem
Device Operates Differently Than Expected (2913)
|
Patient Problem
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Device is expected to be returned to synthes manufacturer for evaluation /investigation, but has yet to be received.(b)(6).Device history records was conducted.The report indicates that the: manufacturing location: (b)(4), manufacturing date: 19.Nov.2012.No ncrs were generated during production.Review of the device history record(s) showed complaint condition the investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.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 on an event in (b)(6) as follows: it was reported that the handle of the tension mechanism is sluggish.It happened during surgery.No delay to surgery.No patient harm.This complaint involves one part.This report is 1 of 1 for (b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.Investigation is ongoing; no conclusion could be drawn as product is entering the complaint system.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.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Product development (pd) investigation: per the pd review, it was determined that this device was a second generation design.There was no evidence of wear visible on the returned device.Further, no design-related root cause was identified for the returned instrument.Rather, the root cause was likely due to insufficient lubrication during the reprocessing cycles.Product investigation summary: the returned instrument was functionally compared to a test instrument for handling as per the surgical technique guide.The returned instrument was less smooth in its tensioning function, which was likely due to insufficient lubrication of the instrument.As a result, the zipfix implants could not be tensioned as tight as intended.The cutting of the implants is as per the design intent with both instruments.The same functional comparison was done after lubricating the returned instrument.It was then observed that the returned instrument could achieve the intended tension of the implant around the sternum bone model.The returned instrument was found to be incorrectly reprocessed (insufficiently or not lubricated), which led to the malfunction encountered in the operating room.No indication for product related issues was found.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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|