|
ASCENSION ORTHOPEDICS, INC. PIP SZ. 10 PROXIMAL; HIGH DEMAND, REVISION, SEMI-CONSTRAINED, PYROLYTIC CARBON, UNCEMENTED FINGER PRO
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
PIP-200-10P-WW |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/09/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a product problem associated with a smith+nephew device.The reported problem relates to known inherent device and/or procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional investigative findings or information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a pip replacement surgery, while impacting the proximal component of the pip sz.10 proximal into the broached canal, the implant snapped in two, separating the stem from the head.The stem was lodged in the canal, which had to be burred out before replacing with another proximal component.No pieces fell into the patient.The procedure was resumed, after a non-significant delay, with a s+n back-up device in the original hole.Surgeon was happy with the second implant and the result was unaffected.The status of the patient is fine.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: the device was not returned for evaluation.However, the photographs were reviewed and revealed that the pip sz.10 proximal is fractured.A review of the production order did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.A review of complaint history for the part number over the past 12 months and for the batch number based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the risk management file revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to this product and event.According with the implant and instrumentation manufacturing specification, all implants and instrumentation will be 100% visually inspected for any damaged areas.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include surgical technique and/or excessive forces.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.Additional information: d5, d7a, d8, h8.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|