|
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: 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.
|
|
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 reported that pre-operatively to a shoulder repair the top hat tap, combo screwdriver and inline coracoid drill guide on the latarjet experience kit had cracked handles.Hospital stated the handle on the coracoid drill guide looks like someone has attempted to glue it back together.The product was returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection of device provided by customer.Visual observations revealed that the device had marks of wear indicating it was heavily used.Also, the laser marks was slightly faded.It was found with a lot of scratches in the shaft and some areas of the handle were cracked.As a potential cause cannot be associated to manufacturing, therefore a manufacturing record evaluation is not required.According with the visual inspection results, this complaint can be confirmed.It is determined that the reusable instrument is worn from repeated use and servicing, this failure can be attributed to normal field wear; as well as to blunt force impact/ heavily use.As per ifu, the precautions for this type of device consist to inspect the condition of the device prior to use.This device can damage, worn or bent; therefore, when this occurs it need to replace.Also, the instrument life is generally determined by the wear or damaged from handling or surgical use.Inspect the instruments before use for integrity and compatibility in order to ensure proper functionality and safety.If you suspect a problem, set aside the instrument for repair.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthes mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|