|
It was reported by the sales rep in (b)(6) that post-operatively to a rotator cuff repair procedure performed on (b)(6) 2021, it was observed that where they used a 4.5mm healix advance" peek anchor with dynacord" suture device, the patient developed c-acnes infection.The surgeon performed a surgery on (b)(6) 2021 for hardware removal, subscap and rotator cuff re-torn, and shoulder washed-out but elected to not repair.The status of the patient post-surgery was unknown.No additional information was provided.
|
|
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 received, it was reported that post-operatively to a rotator cuff repair where they used three 4.5mm healix advance¿ peek anchor with dynacord¿ suture and two 5.5mm healix advance knotless peek anchor, patient developed c-acnes infection.Surgeon doing surgery to washout and clean infection area.If the implants are loose will remove, however if stable will leave construct and washout shoulder.Infection (hardware removal date for tonight if implant site looks infected) otherwise will do a washout and leave repair.The complaint device is not being returned, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.The sterile load information was reviewed to see if there were any other complaints of patient infection for any products sterilized in the same load.There were (b)(4) different lots of product containing (b)(4) devices.A review of the complaint files revealed that no other complaints in which patient infection was reported for a different lot number in the same sterile load.Further, a review into the depuy synthes mitek complaints system revealed no other complaints of any kind for this lot of (b)(4) devices that were released to distribution.The eto sterilization of the device has been done according to requirements of iso 11135:2014.The certificate of sterilization indicates that the physical acceptance criteria and microbiological acceptance criteria were in compliance with the validated specifications.Upon visual inspection of the photo, it was observed only the labels of the devices reported.The photo do not provide enough evidence to determine root cause.Hands on analysis should provide the evidence necessary to confirm the root cause.A manufacturing record evaluation was also performed for the finished device lot number: 6l37965 and no non-conformance was identified.Based on the results from the sterile load review, sterilization certificate and manufacturing record evaluation, it is unlikely that the reported patient infection was caused by this mitek product.Although it is unlikely that the mitek product was a source of the patient¿s infection, with the information provided, and without the complaint device to evaluate, we cannot determine a definite root cause for the reported event.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.
|