|
It was reported that during the use of instruments inside the patient in an mcl reconstruction, the surgeon prepared the bone and then attempted to use the twinfix anchor.The anchor broke upon attempting to introduce into the bone.All broken pieces were removed by hand.The surgeon then chose a twinfix ti anchor which worked successfully.The anchor was used in the original hole prepared.Non-significant delay was reported, and no other complications were reported.
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: the reported device was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found similar reported events.The instructions for use was reviewed and found to include conditions of off label use and technique specifics, as well as precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.A risk management review found that the reported failure was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.A review of the material found there are requirements for conformance and a certificate of material analysis is required.Per the complaint details, we are currently unable to rule out a procedural variance as a contributing factor to the reported event which does not represent a device malfunction.Based on the information provided, all broken pieces were removed by hand.Per report, the surgeon reported the patient had very hard bone.The ifu warns; ¿breakage of the suture anchor can occur if insertion sites are not prepared with appropriate instrumentation prior to implantation.¿ according to the report, the surgeon chose a twinfix ti anchor which worked successfully in the original hole prepared without a significant delay.Since no other complications were reported, no further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.A review of the customer provided image revealed a device with no product identification.The device imaged also reveals a fractured implant coated in debris.It was determined the device did not contribute to the reported event.The complaint was confirmed and the root cause was associated with unintended use of the device.Factors, which could have contributed to the complaint event, include an application of unintended inappropriate or excessive force to the device.No containment or corrective actions are recommended at this time.If the product associated with this event is returned at a future date, this investigation will be reopened for evaluation.
|