|
|
| Catalog Number |
285143 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
09/21/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.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.H10 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by the healthcare professional in switzerland that during an unknown procedure of the shoulder on (b)(6) 2023, it was observed that the bristow-latarjet glenoid 2.9 mm drill bit device broke while trying to drill a hole in the glenoid.It was unknown if and how the procedure was completed.There was a 45 minute delay.There were no adverse patient consequences reported.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.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.H10 additional narrative: b5: subsequent follow-up with the customer, additional information was received regarding the event.It was reported that the broken pieces were successfully removed from the patient.It was reported that another reamer was used to complete the procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.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.H10 additional narrative: d9, h3, h6: the actual device has been returned and is currently pending evaluation.Once the device has been evaluated, a supplemental medwatch report will be sent accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.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.H10 additional narrative: investigation summary: the product was returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection and functional test of device received.Visual observations revealed that the distal part and the shaft were separated; the distal part of the shaft showed that the weld was broken and mechanical damage.The device also exhibits wear as would be typical with rough use of the device over repeated uses.Also, the laser marks were faded, and some areas were discolored.Finally, biological matter was found in the distal part.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device and no non-conformances were identified.Based on the visual inspection, this complaint can be confirmed and a root cause cannot be determined.The manufactured date of this device is 2017 and hence indicates this device is 6 years old this device is reusable and revealed wear marks from repeated use and servicing, this failure can be attributed to blunt force impact/ heavily use.As per the instructions for use inspect the instruments before use for integrity and compatibility to ensure proper functionality and safety.Highly alkaline conditions can damage products with aluminum parts.Avoid exposing instruments to hypochlorite solutions, as these will promote corrosion.Sterilization is not a substitute for cleaning.Devices must be thoroughly cleaned prior to sterilization.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, in depuy synthes mitek, additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|