| Model Number |
210725 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Device-Device Incompatibility (2919)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/02/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Udi: (b)(4); unknown.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by the affiliate in (b)(6) that during an unknown procedure on (b)(6) 2020, it was observed that the panalok #2 pan cp-2 device was blocked during operation.Another like device was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient consequences reported.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
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.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by the affiliate in france that during an arthroscopic supraspinatus repair procedure on (b)(6) 2020, it was observed that the panalok #2 pan cp-2 device could not be fired as it was blocked during operation.Another like device was used to complete the procedure with an unspecified delay.There were no adverse patient consequences reported.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
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 that the user was not able to fire the anchorage which blocked the operating act.The complaint device was received and evaluated.Visual observation does not reveal any structural anomalies on the anchor.The handle and the shaft didn't presented any physical damages.In addition, the suture and needles were intact inside the mouth of the anchor.Besides, the anchor remained on the inserter.The anchor was deployed successfully into a sample rubber and the inserter was unscrewed from the anchor and removed.The complaint cannot be confirmed.We cannot determine what caused the customer to experience this failure.As a potential cause cannot be associated to manufacturing, therefore a manufacturing record evaluation is not required.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|