|
|
| Model Number |
222209 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Not Applicable (3189); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/02/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint #: (b)(4).To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.Udi: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by affiliate via complaint submission tool that two healix anchors broke at the tip while surgeon was trying to deploy it in a rotator cuff surgery.The procedure was completed with another device.No patient consequence.There was a delay of 15 minutes.Fragments were generated, removed successfully.The devices are available to be returned for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.H10 additional narrative: additional information: event description(b5).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information received from the affiliate reported the surgeon was able to use the same bone hole to implant the second anchor.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.H10 additional narrative: investigation summary = > according to the information provided, it was reported by affiliate via complaint submission tool that two healix anchors broke at the tip while surgeon was trying to deploy it in a rotator cuff surgery.The complaint device is not being returned, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.However, a photo was provided.Upon visual inspection of the photo, the distal tip of the anchors was broken.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot number:2l82260, and no non-conformances were identified.The complaint reported was confirmed.The photo does not provide enough evidence to determine root cause.The possible root cause for the reported failure can be associated with off axis insertion or levering during insertion.This cannot be conclusive determined. at this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthes mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Investigation summary: the complaint device was received and evaluated.Upon visual inspection, it could be observed that the inserter shaft is not deformed or bent, the inserter tip is in good condition, no structural anomalies were found.The anchor is broken at the tip.The device has some spots of biological matter.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device 2l82260 number, and no non-conformances were identified.As part of depuy synthes mitek quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.According with the visual inspection result, this complaint can be confirmed.A root cause for the broken anchor can be attributed to procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure; axial misalignment or bending force was applied to the tip of the device.As per ifu: inserting the awl less than the specified depth, axial misalignment or levering with the anchor upon insertion, may result in anchor fracture.Do not apply a bending force to the inserter.This can damage the anchor or inserter tip.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthes mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.H10 additional narrative: d9, h3, h6: the actual device has been returned and is currently pending evaluation.Once reliability engineering evaluates the device, a supplemental medwatch report will be sent accordingly.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|