|
During inspection, it was noted that the mount was fractured, and the implant showed minor signs of use but was not fractured as initially reported.Upon follow up, the customer reported that the mount fractured as the doctor was placing the implant.Because they were not sure if the implant collar was damaged or not, they decided against using the implant.
|
|
This report is being submitted to relay corrected data, additional information and device evaluation.Correction: it was confirmed that the mount was fractured, and the implant showed minor signs of use but was not fractured as initially reported.H6: investigation type codes were added: 3331, 4109, 4110 and 4111.H6: investigation findings code was added: 3252.H6: investigation conclusions codes were added: 4307.H10: narrative/data was updated.One (1) imp, tsv, 4.1, 10, mtxf, mg,ha (tsvt4h10) was returned for investigation.Visual evaluation of the as returned implant identified that the mount fractured at hexed area.Based on the evaluation, device malfunction has occurred.However, there is no existing nonconformance / capa / hhe/d / ie / product hold against the reported device that did or could cause or contribute to the reported event.Monthly post market trending review identified no adverse trends or actionable trends for the reported event or device.Zimvie quality management system (qms) has controls in place to ensure the distribution of conforming products.Therefore, based on the available information, the product was within specifications and conforming when it left zimvie.Dhr review for the lot (1251927) revealed no deviations nor non-conformances which could have caused or contributed to the reported event.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot number (1251927) for a similar event (complaint category keywords: fracture: mount) and no other complaint was identified.Functional testing to recreate the reported event could not be performed due to the nature of the device & event.Therefore, the reported event could not be recreated.A definitive root cause could not be determined.However, based on the investigation, risk review and ifu, the most likely cause determined from the investigation is: incompatibility with consumables/accessories/other devices.No further investigation or immediate capa / hhe/d escalation is required, as the complaint investigation did not confirm the product was nonconforming at the time of distribution, and no new failure mode, harm, or hazardous situation was identified through the investigation performed.
|