|
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.Additional narrative: udi: (b)(4).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.
|
|
It was reported by a healthcare professional in brazil that during an unknown procedure of the knee on (b)(6) 2022, it was observed that an unknown date, it was observed that the 5 mm ultra aggressive plus blade device released metal fragments inside the patient's knee.According to the report, the surgeon washed the site but not every fragment was removed.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 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.Investigation summary: the complaint device is not being returned, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.However, a video was provided.Upon visual inspection of the video, it appeared that metal fragments were in the tissue.The complaint reported was confirmed.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device m2108034, and no non-conformances were identified.Based on device condition observed in the video, this complaint can be confirmed.No further procedure information was provided to determine how this failure occurred.Besides, as per information of the procedure, the possible root cause for reported failure can be attributed to blade wear and degradation, as per ifu; excessive side loading may result in blade wear and degradation.Adequate suction is recommended to reduce wear and degradation of the device.Besides, the handpiece where the blade is assembled was not received for evaluation, potential ways to reduce shedding is to ensure all hand pieces are properly serviced and maintained.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.
|