|
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: b5: subsequent follow-up with the customer, additional information was received.It was reported that fragments were generated but were not removed.It was unknown that a fragment existed until post op x-ray.It was reported that there was no additional surgery planned for removal of the broken driver tip as of yet but the patient is complaining of excessive pain.It was reported that there have not been any additional medical/surgical interventions been performed (x-rays, medications, etc.).It was reported that the broken tip suspected to be cause of the patients pain cannot be ruled out.
|
|
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: according to the information provided, it was reported that during a rotator cuff repair the driver tip on the end of the anchor inserter of a healix advance peek w/ triple strand broke off inside the anchor and was implanted into the patient.The physician stated that the patient is complaining of significant pain.The complaint device is not being returned, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.However, a photo was provided.Upon visual inspection of the photo, showed an x-ray radiography where appeared to have the tip of the healix driver tubing inside the body.The photo did not showed the condition of the device.Based on the information and the evidence, this complaint can be confirmed.Hands on analysis should provide the evidence necessary to discern a specific root cause.From historical investigation, this failure was reviewed and the result indicates that the shaft and the tip have a connection point and it is probable that this type of failure can related to a welding issue; when applying excessive tension or with off axis insertion affecting the connection point, it was possible may not have noticed that it broke during the procedure; however, it cannot be conclusively affirmed.Given that no lot number was provided, a manufacturing record evaluation (mre) review cannot be performed.If the lot number becomes available, the mre review will be performed.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.
|