|
Model Number 283419 |
Device Problem
Break (1069)
|
Patient Problem
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
Event Date 12/01/2021 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Udi: (b)(4).To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported by the sales rep that during a knee arthroscopy surgery on (b)(6) 2021, it was observed that there was a cloud of very fine metal debris while using aggressive 4.0mm blade device into the knee joint.The knee joint was flushed out to remove the fine metal particulates.The procedure was completed.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay reported.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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.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.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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.The device was returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection of device received and photo provided by the customer.Upon visual inspection, the inner and outer sleeves were separated and inspected for any visual defects that may contribute to the complaint condition.The device had signs of friction and striation marks of wear on the surface of the distal end of the inner blade and inside the outer; also, biological residues were found in the inner.Based on device condition received, this complaint can be confirmed.Manufacturing record evaluation is not required as the reported event is not associated with the manufacturing process and/or the potential cause of the defect cannot be associated to manufacturing.No more information was provided about the procedure that would help determine the root cause for the failure.The possible root cause for reported failure can be attributed to blade wear and degradation, as per the ifu; excessive side loading may result in blade wear and degradation.Adequate suction is recommended to reduce wear and degradation of the device.Besides, a hand piece used in this procedure where the blade is assembled was not received for evaluation, potential ways to reduce shedding is to ensure all hand pieces are properly serviced and maintained.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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|