|
H2: additional information ¿b5: event description, h6: health effect - clinical code and impact code¿.H3, h6: ¿the reported device was received for evaluation.An analysis of the customer provided images in two pictures showed two devices side by side one straight and one broken/bent and a third image shows an x-ray with a material in a bone.A visual inspection revealed only one device was returned in the carton, but two different lot numbers were on the packaging appearing to signify two devices returned.The returned device is outside of original packaging.The device was returned without anchor, suture, nose tube, and suture cover.The distal tip of the device is broken and appears to have been bent until broken.The device had been fully actuated.A functional evaluation of the returned device is not applicable.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat event.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification upon release for distribution.The instructions for use was reviewed and found to include conditions of off label use and technique specifics, as well as precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.A risk management review found that the reported failure was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.It was determined the device did not contribute to the reported event.The complaint was confirmed and the root cause was associated with unintended use of the device.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include excessive force applied to the inserter.Per the complaint details, the surgeon used the suturefix ultra ahr s 2 ub str blue and suturefix ultra ahr s 2 ub str cb blu inside the patient during arthroscopy procedure.According to the report, the attached image was reviewed by the surgeon immediately after the surgery, that revealed a metal piece at the distal tip was left in the glenoid.It was reported the procedure was completed with the same device without a surgical delay or patient injuries.The attached image confirmed the metal piece at the distal tip was retained in the glenoid.However, the root cause of the tip breakage cannot be determined.Although we cannot rule out a procedural variance as the likely cause of the reported issue.The retained metal tip was manufactured and intended as an external communicating device and it has not been approved for long term internal tissue exposure and long-term implantation data is not available.Since it was reported the retained metal tip was in the glenoid, micro-motion and/or migration is unlikely.Based on the information provided, the procedure was completed with the same device without a surgical delay or patient harm.Therefore, no further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.Should any additional relevant patient information be provided, this complaint would be re-assessed.No containment or corrective actions are recommended at this time.¿.
|