|
H3, h6: the device, used in treatment was not returned for evaluation.Without the actual product, product evaluation could not be performed and complaint could not be confirmed.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the products failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.According to clinical/medical investigation, this complaint from the united states reports that a dual mobility insert was removed and replaced with a competitor¿ liner secondary to ¿an adverse tissue reaction¿.After several attempts no information has been forthcoming.Smith and nephew has not received the device/adequate materials to fully evaluate the complaint, but if additional clinically relevant materials are later received, then the case may be re-opened for further evaluation.There is no information that would suggest the device failed to meet specifications.A relationship, if any, between the device and the reported incident could not be corroborated.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.A review of risk management files and instructions for use found that the reported failure was documented appropriately.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.We consider this investigation closed.
|