|
It was reported that during a trauma surgery, one (1) evos 2.4mm flex plate 6 hole device was used on the inferior aspect.The evos 2.4mm flex plate 6 hole device bent in plane to fit distal aspect of the clavicle and superior end, a slight sagittal bend was applied with a synthes cmf plate bender.About the third hole from the end, the plate fractured at the screw hole.Plate had to be used since there was no spare implant.The procedure was resumed, without any delay, using the same device.Patient current health status is unknown.
|
|
Section h3, h6: given the nature of the alleged incident, the device, could not be returned for evaluation.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, per the complaint details, we are currently unable to rule out a procedural variance as a contributing factor to the reported event.It is unknown whether the broken plating screw pieces were removed.Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of micro-motion and migration of any possible retained fragments.Based on the information provided, there were no delays reported and the procedure was completed with the same device.No further clinical assessment can be rendered at this time.Device batch number was not provided, thus, an evaluation of the manufacturing records could not be performed.A review of complaint history for the previous 12 months did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for mini-fragment plating system reveals in warnings that it is extremely important to select the appropriate size and type components.Failure to use the largest possible components or improper positioning may result in fracture of the device.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.According with inspection drawing, the final inspection includes the verification of part configuration per print.Also, material specification, shall control the quality and manufacture of 316l stainless steel for surgical implants.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.With the results of this investigation the root cause of this event could not be determined.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include size selected, surgical technique used or user/procedural variance.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.H6: health effect - impact code.
|