|
Zimvie complaint number (b)(4).Zimvie received one (1) tsvmh10, (imp, tsv, 3.7, 10,mtx,mc,mg,ha) for evaluation.Visual evaluation of the as returned device identified the implant with signs of use, and apparent bone / tissue attached to external threads.Damage to the implant was identified likely due to the removal process.The implant's collar was fractured.An irt tool was identified stuck to the implant.The stuck tool did not contribute to the patient¿s implant fracture.Functional testing to recreate the reported event could not be performed due to the nature of the device & event.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot number 1239130.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 1239130 for similar events and no other complaint was identified.Review completed utilizing keywords: fracture implant.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root causes determined from the investigation are long-term parafunctional habits (e.G., clenching, bruxism, and overloading) of the patient over the implantation period ¿ patient factors.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.At this time, the complaint investigation has been completed and the record will be closed.If additional information is received, the record will be re-opened for further evaluation.
|