|
The reported event ¿implant did not fit on the left side¿ could be confirmed based on the provided intraoperative image.However, the reported event ¿left side was flat compared to design proposal¿ could not be confirmed based on the provided intraoperative image.In further communication with the sales representative, it could be clarified during the investigation based on the intraoperative image that a gap is present between the implant and the defect, that was not covered.It could not be clarified whether the soft tissue in the temporalis area was fully cleared.The implant¿s design was strongly curved in the temporalis area, to match the defects void.Therefore, a full clearance of that area before implantation is essential.Further, it could be clarified that the free-floating tool, which was identified in the design review, was removed.It is not clear whether all calcifications, which were highlighted in the design proposal, were removed prior implantation.It was noted that the ct scan provided was obtained on (b)(6) 2021, whereas the design got created on (b)(6) 2021.There is a period of roughly 9 months in between, in which anatomical changes can appear.The sales rep confirmed that this ct scan was provided by the surgeon.The ct scan date warning was placed in the design proposal and is applicable.In conclusion, the implant was designed as requested by the customer.The main contributing factor is assumed to be the age of the ct scan.However, without a post-op or a later ct scan, no potential changes in the patient¿s anatomy can be investigated.Overall, the implant was designed according to all quality instructions, and manufactured to specification.H3 other text : device not available.
|