|
|
| Model Number |
270120 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
02/19/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Udi: (b)(4).The lot number was 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 sales rep that during a rotator cuff repair procedure on (b)(6) 2021, it was observed that one of the jaws on the grasper-grabber device broke off.The fragment was retrieved.Another like device was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay 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 one of the jaws of the grasper - graber broke off.The device was received and evaluated.Visual observations reveals that the lower jaw is broken, the movement of the upper jaw was tested, it performed as intended, no anomalies were detected.As a potential cause cannot be associated to manufacturing, therefore a manufacturing record evaluation is not required.As part of depuy synthes mitek quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.According with the visual inspection and the functional test result, this complaint can be confirmed.The possible root cause can be attributed to the repeated use and sterilization of the device and rough handling, the operator could have applied extreme force to the grasper while the grasping action was performed, leading to a broken lower jaw.As per ifu 107066: end-of-useful-instrument-life is generally determined by wear or damage from handling or surgical use.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to monitor additional complaint information for potential safety signals 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.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.
|
| |
|
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: d4, h4: the lot number and manufacture date were reported as unknown on the initial report.Both fields have been updated accordingly.Therefore, udi: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|