|
Zimvie complaint (b)(4).A1: patient identifier is not provided / unknown.A2: patient age is not provided / unknown.A4: patient weight is not provided / unknown.E1: initial reporter¿s title, first name, last name and email address are not provided / unknown.G4: additional 510(k) number is k101880.
|
|
This report is being submitted to report additional information.The following sections are being reported: d4: expiration date and unique identifier (udi) number.H2: if follow-up, what type.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer.H4: device manufacturer date.H6: type of investigation.H6: investigation findings.H6: investigation conclusions.H10: additional narratives/data.Zimvie received one implant for evaluation.Visual evaluation of the as returned device identified the implant, and bundled mount with signs of use.Damage to the implant was identified, likely due from the removal process.The mount was fractured.The bundled mount hex was fractured inside the implant.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot number no deviations or non-conformances, which could have caused or contributed to the reported event, were noted as part of the dhr.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot number for similar events and no other complaint was identified.Review completed utilizing keywords: ¿fracture¿ based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root causes determined from the investigation are incorrect technique used during placement / excessive torque.Therefore, based on the available information, a device malfunction did occur.The reported event was confirmed with all the available information.No further investigation or immediate capa / hhe/d escalation is required, as the complaint investigation did not confirm the product was nonconforming at the time of distribution, and no new failure mode, harm, or hazardous situation was identified through the investigation performed.
|