|
The reported failure mode could not be confirmed, as no photos of the implant not fitting into the void during surgery were provided.Additional information was provided by the sales rep on the reported event that the implant would not sit properly.When pushing down the implant anteriorly to the point that it sits flush with the anterior void, it would pop up posteriorly up to 1 inch (and vice versa).Swelling was present during the case, and the sales rep made the surgeon aware of the presence of swelling prior surgery.The surgeon disliked the symmetric design of the implant and expected it to be designed more convex shaped to allow the swelling more space.Overall, the device was not implanted, and the surgery aborted.The prolongation of the surgery was 1h ¿ 1,5h.Further treatment plan for the patient has not been determined.No revision device was ordered for this patient at the point this investigation is completed.The device was returned for evaluation and an analysis of the implant design and all quality relevant steps was performed by the peek cci design team for the implant under complaint (id 2107091033).It showed that all ¿steps were performed in accordance to [our] freqi procedures.The implant is designed as requested through erequest.¿ the scan provided was 3 days old when the implant was designed, and swelling was very present in the scan.Therefore, an additional note was placed on p.5 of the design proposal pointing out the presence of swelling.The implant itself was designed symmetric to the contralateral side.The designers may raise awareness notes in the design proposal to highlight potential difficulties (e.G.Presence of swelling).In conclusion, the implant was designed as requested by the customer and the root cause can be attributed to the patient condition and the swelling that was still present during surgery.Overall, the implant was designed according to all quality instructions, and manufactured to specification.
|