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 provided, it was reported that three shavers "seized up" after short use and could no longer be moved.The complaint device was received for evaluation.Upon reviewing the device, it could be observed that the inner shaft is seized, it was not possible to spin to any direction or separate.No anomalies were found on the black connector.As a potential cause cannot be associated to manufacturing, therefore a manufacturing record evaluation is not required.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device m2103016 number, and no non-conformances were identified.According with the visual inspection, this complaint can be confirmed.A possible root cause for the reported issue can be attributed to the procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure; higher speeds applied on the handpiece can increase the temperature of the device's shaft, lack of adequate irrigation and excessive side loading can contribute to a seized inner shaft, as per ifu 110849: adequate irrigation to the tip of the blade or burr is required to cool the blade and prevent accumulation of excised material in the surgical site.Excessive side loading may result in blade wear and degradation, as well as clogging and/or seizing.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to monitor additional complaint information for potential safety signals through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.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 correction narrative: h4: the device manufacture date has been updated to reflect the correct information.
|