Additional narrative: if information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.The complaint device was received and evaluated.Visual observation under a microscope showed clear evidence of heavy usage on the inner burr and the inner cutting window.Nicks and marks were observed on the inner tip and it appeared to be chipped on one side.The tip of the outer shaft also looked nicked and worn.The shiny part seen on the distal tip of the outer shaft indicates that there were some metal shavings from that part of the device.This type of failure is consistent with the device hitting hard bone causing the wear at the distal tip on the inner blade.Application of too much pressure against the bone might have caused the metal at the distal end of the device to shave/chip.Also, since there was burr observed on the inner shaft, the friction between inner and the outer shaft might have caused some part of the metal debris from the inner shaft to fall into the patient.However, apart from these possibilities, we cannot determine a definite root cause for this failure at this point in time.Further, a review of the device history record for the reported batch number revealed no anomalies relating to the reported incident.A non-conformance was opened for this lot.However, it was not related to the issue reported in this complaint.Further, a review into the depuy synthes mitek complaints system revealed no other complaints of any kind for this lot of devices that were released to distribution.At this point in time, no corrective action is required and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes 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.Udi: (b)(4).
|