|
|
| Catalog Number |
210711 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/09/2023
|
|
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.H10 additional narrative: as of this date, the device has not been returned for evaluation; therefore, the reported condition cannot be confirmed and/or duplicated.Udi: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by the sales rep in switzerland that during an unspecified surgical procedure on (b)(6) 2023 while trying to insert the anchor of the lupine br w/orthcrd device it was noted that it broken in the middle of the anchor body.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.D9, h3, h6: the actual device has been returned and is currently pending evaluation.Once the investigation has been completed, a supplemental medwatch report will be submitted 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 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 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.The products were returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection of the devices received.Visual analysis of the device revealed that the anchor is broken, into two pieces.The proximal piece is still attached to the inserter.The distal broken pieces is still attached to the suture, they are partially impregnated of foreign matter, presumably biological matter.The suture as well as the rest of the device do not show structural anomalies.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device, and no non-conformances were identified.Based on the visual findings, this complaint was confirmed.The possible root cause for the issue experienced by the customer can be attributed to procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure; bending force could have been applied and consequently cause the anchor to break, however this cannot be conclusively determined.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|