|
See h6 and h11.The dynanail ttc was explanted (b)(6) 2025 due to infection.The exact cause of the infection was not relayed and could have been associated with the original implant or unrelated but the location of the reported infection remains unknown.The parts were not returned for analysis.It is unknown if the surgical technique was adhered to due to limited information provided.As there was no reported deficiency with the dynanail construct, and the infection cannot be definitely attributed to dynanail, the root cause shall remain unknown.The dynanail risk analysis matrix documents were reviewed.Multiple line items/causes are associated with removal/explant of the device with varying degrees of detection, patient/device severity, and occurrence.Complaint history was reviewed from mar 1, 2024 (1st complaint records in agile) to feb 28, 2025, resulting in two complaints (including this one) of a dynanail ttc explant due to infection.Based on a sales volume of 1545 from mar 1, 2024, to feb 28, 2025, the occurrence level of remote is appropriate for removal due to infection.The dynanail risk analysis matrices were generated using the legacy medshape risk management sop, occurrence level comparison is in alignment with that procedure.The reported complaint did not indicate any evidence of product failure upon evaluation.Potential causes of revision surgery due to infection are appropriately identified in the product risk analysis matrix.Although the specific cause of the revision surgery was infection, it remains unknow the actual cause of the infection.The failure mode and cause are within the acceptable limits identified in the product risk analysis matrix and there is no indication of a systemic product issue.Therefore, a capa is not justified.
|