|
|
| Catalog Number |
72204042 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Delivered as Unsterile Product (1421)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
01/24/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference case-(b)(4).H3, h6: 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 set up, when the customer opened the retrograde drill package, it was already opened and the adhesive was missing.A backup device was available, and no surgical delay was reported.There was no patient involvement.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: h3, h6: the reported device was received for evaluation.A visual inspection of the returned device found that it is sealed in its original packaging with an incomplete seal.The outer box is crumpled at one end.A review of the material specifications found that the raw material strength requirements and storage requirements are specified.Also, each lot must be accompanied by a material certificate of analysis.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found no similar reported events.A risk management review found that the reported failure and/or harm was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.A review of the device drawings found that a certificate of conformance and a certificate of sterility required.A supplier evaluation was performed and found the shelf carton in which the device was returned had sustained severe damage during shipment to the customer.However, the outer (shipper) box received at viant showed no signs of damage.The end of the tray on the returned device, which was unsealed, sustained damage in the same location as the damaged shelf carton.Upon review, there is evidence (residue) that the tray/lid were completely sealed all around the tray flange.These devices undergo a 300% visual inspection before being shipped to the customer.After sealing and before peel test, the devices are inspected for voids, wrinkles, glazing.The root cause of the reported event could not be determined since findings cannot lead to a clear cause of the reported event.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include potential packaging damage due to improper storage, handling or transport.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|