|
The device, used in treatment, was returned for evaluation.A visual inspection of the returned device shows the product has deep cuts on the inferior surface and scratches on the articulating surface of the part.A review of the complaint history for the listed part revealed no prior complaints for the listed failure mode.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal any manufacturing or material abnormalities that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A clinical evaluation noted that revision surgery was performed due to dislocation.Per correspondence, the patient outcome was ¿normal¿ with no foreign body retained in the patient.No further patient impact would be anticipated based on the information provided.No further medical assessment is warranted at this time.Per the report, the post did not break.The patient damaged their later collateral ligament, therefore was dislocating.The doctor switched to a constrained insert to solve the problem.A review of risk management files and the instructions for use found that the reported failure was documented appropriately.The root cause was noted that the patient damaged their later collateral ligament, therefore was dislocating.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|