|
If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Additional narrative: this report is for an unknown implant.Part and lot number are unknown.Without the specific part number; the udi number, 510-k number and manufacturing site name are unknown.The lot number was unknown; therefore, the expiration date and manufacture date were unknown.Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.Product was not returned.Based on the information available, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.This complaint will be accounted for and monitored via post market surveillance activities.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.Investigation summary: the complaint device is not being returned, it was implanted in the patient, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.This complaint file was opened to document complaints derived through clinical research data.The clinical research data indicated depuy mitek product failure(s).Since there was no contact information, no follow-up attempts could be performed.It is unknown if complaints derived from this clinical research data were previously reported and documented in the depuy mitek complaint system at the time of occurrence as no product code/lot number information was provided to perform the search.With the information provided, and without the complaint device to evaluate, we cannot determine a root cause for the reported problem.Since no lot number was provided, a manufacturing record evaluation or sterile load review could not be conducted.If any additional information is obtained, this complaint will be re-opened to capture that information.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 to which this complaint is observed in the field.
|
|
It was reported by a healthcare professional through clinical research report for clinical evidence on safety and performance of the latarjet experience using a sterile latarjet screw, 34mm device that postoperatively to an arthroscopic bone fixation procedure of the right shoulder performed on (b)(6) 2021, the patient had a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2021 that included an open glenoid reconstruction with distal tibial allograft, open inferior capsular shift, conjoint tendon tendesis/muscle transfer, and removal of hardware due to a coracoid graft fracture with screw pullout.According to the report, the patient externally rotated arm to reach out for the phone, felt a pop and pain.It was further reported that the x-ray showed a coracoid fracture and a device pullout.The current status of the patient was unknown.No additional information was provided.
|