|
Complaint 2 of 2.Visual inspection of the returned magec rod revealed that it was partially distracted, with some wear/score marks consistent with expected markings due to incremental distraction.The wear/score marks observed on the distraction rod would indicate the distraction rod was extended approximated 12 mm from its initial position.X-ray images of the internal components showed no damage and revealed the rod was partially distracted.The rod was then functionally tested; during testing the rod was unable to distract or retract with the manual distractor as well as the external remote controller (erc).The rod was therefore determined to be jammed.Sectioning of the rod determined that the distraction rod and spline could not be separated from the housing tube without use of high force, which indicates the distraction rod was out of alignment.It is possible, bending forces applied to the rod from patient anatomy/activity may have caused the distraction rod and spline to become wedged into the housing tube/become out of alignment, which would cause the rod to become jammed.Per the eifu (electronic instructions for use), contraindications include: "patients and/or families unwilling or incapable of following postoperative care instructions." review of the device history records revealed no discrepancies related to this complaint.The rod was manufactured in accordance with the specified requirements and met all of the required quality inspections.
|