|
The associated list of dynanail ttc parts were explanted (b)(6) 2024.Multiple attempts were made to gather additional information as to the cause for the parts being explanted but no further information was provided.The parts were returned for analysis.The returned nail, screws, and end cap were inspected by r&d.No abnormalities or defects were identified.Based on no apparent damage to the nail, screws, or end cap and no apparent assembly issue with the nail the most probable cause(s) for the nail removal would be pain or infection.For example, there could have been a systemic infection leading to a precautionary removal of dynanail components.Anecdotally, the complaint stated that the patient's insurance required the implant to be returned.The dynanail risk analysis matrix documents dfmea-fa001-0000, rev a, and dfmea-fa001-0001, rev a, were reviewed.Multiple line items/causes are associated with removal/explant of the device.The line items associated/related to pain and infection indicate a worst-case detection of 2, patient severity of 4, device severity 1, and an occurrence of 1.Complaint history was reviewed from (b)(6) 2024 (1st complaint records in agile) to (b)(6) 2025, resulting in three other complaints ((b)(4)) of a dynanail ttc explant due to pain/infection.Based on a sales volume of 1545 from (b)(6) 2024, to (b)(6) 2025, and multiple potential causes (including non-device related), the occurrence level of remote is appropriate.The dynanail risk analysis matrices dfmea-fa001-0000, rev a, and dfmea-fa001-0001, were generated using the legacy medshape risk management sop, qs-7.1 rev 08.Occurrence level comparison is in alignment with that procedure.The reported explant showed no evidence of product failure upon evaluation.Potential causes of pain or infection are appropriately identified in the product risk analysis matrix.Although pain/infection are the likely causes for this explant, due to lack of information the actual cause is unknown and does not indicate a systemic product issue.
|