| Catalog Number |
283319 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Device-Device Incompatibility (2919); Output Problem (3005)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/20/2024
|
|
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 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: h4: the device date of manufacture is unknown at this time.Udi: (b)(4).As of this date, the device has not been returned for evaluation; therefore, the reported condition cannot be confirmed and/or duplicated.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported from france that the 3.5mm aggressive plus 5pk device knife stopped turning and the chuck could not be removed.It was not reported if there were any delays in a surgical procedure, or if a spare device was available for use.It was not reported if there were any injuries, medical intervention or prolonged hospitalization.The exact date of this event was unknown but was noted to have occurred in 2024.All available information has been disclosed.
|
| |
|
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.B3: the event date was unknown in the initial report and has been updated.H4: the device manufacture date has been added.Additional information received from the reporter reported that the event occurred during a knee arthroscopy procedure, the procedure was completed successfully and there was no significant extension of the intervention.
|
| |
|
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.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.H11 additional narrative: the product was returned to depuy synthes mitek for evaluation.Depuy synthes mitek then conducted visual inspection of the device received.Visual inspection reveled that the inner hub was stuck in the outer hub, noticeably friction marks were noted in the inner hub distal end.Both hubs could not be disassembled.Due to this condition the functional test could not be performed.The overall complaint was confirmed as the observed condition of the 3.5mm aggressive plus 5pk would contribute to the complained device issue.¿ based on the investigation findings, the root cause us traced to procedural variables, such handling of the device or product interaction during procedure; the blade was subjected to excessive lateral loading, which caused it to fail.As per the instructions for use excessive side loading may result in blade wear and degradation.Adequate suction is recommended to reduce wear and degradation of the device.Therefore, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.There is no indication that a design or manufacturing issue has caused the reported complaint condition.As part of depuy synthes mitek quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|