|
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: the complaint device is not being returned, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation, however a photo was provided.Upon visual inspection of the photo, the polypropylene cage shows one of the retaining tabs broken.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device 8l16785 number, and no non-conformances were identified.As part of depuy synthes mitek quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.According with the visual inspection result, this complaint can be confirmed.A possible root cause can be attributed procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure at the moment of suture tensioning; as per ifu: avoid over-tensioning as this may compromise the integrity of the speedtrap suture/graft construct.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.
|