|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Udi: (b)(4).Reporter is a j&j sales representative.The device manufacture date is currently unavailable.To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.
|
|
This is report 1 of 2 for (b)(4).It was reported by the sales rep that during an unknown procedure on (b)(6) 2022, it was observed that the speedtrap construct white, short and the speedtrap construct green/white, short devices would not stay in the patient.Another like device was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay reported.No additional information was provided.
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Investigation summary : only the white suture of the speed trap was returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection of device received.Visual observations reveals that the winding white suture was frayed and broken, the speedtrap delivery device was not received for evaluation.Given that lot number provided is not recognized, a manufacturing record evaluation (mre) review cannot be performed.If the lot number becomes available, the mre review will be performed.Based on the condition of the suture, this complaint can be confirmed, but a root cause cannot be established.The possible root cause can be related to procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure.The condition of the suture could be related to an under or over tension exerted on the white loop.As part of mitek¿s quality process all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthese mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|