|
At the time of investigation, there was no capa and no trends associated with this event type.The product will not be returned, and therefore cannot be evaluated.A review of the lot was conducted and found one non-conformance related to this unrelated to this specific complaint type.The parts were scrapped and the lot met release requirements.Complaints of this nature are monitored through tracking and trending.If a trend is detected, further investigation will be conducted through the capa/continous improvement process.No further action is required at this time.Complaint number (b)(4).
|
|
For the case on (b)(6) 2021, a 9mm proti cage 108812009 (206128 lot) needed to be condemned as the cage disengaged from the applicator.Parts of the applicator are listed as follows, applicator inner shaft (03.812.003) + applicator outer shaft (03.812.001)+ applicator knob (03.812.004).The surgeon inserted applicator with 9mm pro-ti cage.A standard procedure was followed, the cage was first inserted in a locking state, the turned the know to open for turning the cage.As the position of the cage was slightly anterior.So surgeon decided to use a slide hammer to move the cage in posterior direction.The slide hammer was operated in a gentle and controlled force.Yet, suddenly, the cage detached from the applicator.Removal tool was attempt to grab the implant, yet, there was not enough space to insert the removal tool.The disengaged implant was removed from anterior approach through another incision.Synfix evolution was used to fuse l5-s1.Surgeon would like us to investigate why the cage disengaged from the applicator.
|