|
Udi: (b)(4).Investigation summary: the complaint device was not returned; therefore, unavailable for a physical evaluation, however a photo was provided.Upon visual inspection of the photo, it was found that the shaft of the device was detached from the handle while the anchor remained attached on the inserter tip, however, it was uncertain that the anchor was stuck due to the device was not returned.As no defect was found, a potential cause cannot be associated to manufacturing, therefore a manufacturing record evaluation is not required.As part of depuy synthes mitek quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.According with the photo visual inspection result, this complaint cannot be confirmed.The customer is not sending the device for evaluation.The device is required for testing, the photo provided does not contain enough evidence to determine why the customer experienced the failure, hands on analysis should provide the required evidence to provide a root cause.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthes mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|
|
It was reported by the customer in (b)(6) that during an unknown surgery on (b)(6) 2021, it was observed that the anchor could not be detached from the shaft on the 5.5 healix3 peek anc.W/ocord device.During in-house engineering evaluation of the photo provided by the customer, it was determined that the shaft of the device was detached from the handle while the anchor remained attached on the inserter tip.Another like device was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay reported.No additional information was provided.
|