|
This report is being submitted to relay additional information and device evaluation.The following sections are being reported: b4: date of this report was updated.D4: device expiration date was updated.D9: device availability and return date were updated.G3: date received by manufacturer was updated.G6: type of report was updated.H2: type of follow up was updated.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer was updated.H6: type of investigation codes were added: 4109, 4111 and 3331.H6: investigation findings code was added: 3252.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 4307.H10: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the reported implant for evaluation.Visual evaluation was performed, the implant had signs of use.The implant was fractured at the body.The fractured bottom portion of the implant was not returned.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.The customer did submit images for the reported event.The image was of an implant fractured at the body.The fractured piece was not inside the sterile peel pak.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root cause determined from the investigation was the clinician places an implant in an patient with patient factors (e.G.Bruxism) incompatible with long-term osseointegration of implant.Therefore, based on the available information, device malfunction did occur.The implant was fractured.The reported event was confirmed.No further investigation or immediate capa / hhe/d escalation is required, as the complaint investigation did not confirm the products were nonconforming at the time of distribution, and no new failure mode, harm, or hazardous situation was identified through the investigation performed.
|