| Catalog Number |
72203160 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Material Deformation (2976)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
03/06/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference (b)(6).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 an arthroscopy, the drill guide broke inside the bone while drilling.The drill could not be removed and remained inside the glenoid bone.The procedure was successfully completed with a surgical delay of less than 30 minutes using a smith and nephew back-up device.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: this complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication related to a product problem with a smith+nephew device.The reported issue(s) relate 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 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.H11: corrected information in b1, b2 and h10.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H2: additional information in a1, a2 & a3.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: h3, h6: the reported device was received for evaluation.A visual inspection of the returned device concluded the device presents with the distal end twisted, bent and deformed.The drilling surface is wound back into the flexible portion of the shaft.Insufficient product identification information was provided and thus a manufacturing record review could not be conducted.Based on the information available, there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications 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.The instructions for use was reviewed and found to include conditions of off label use and technique specifics, as well as precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.A clinical review states the images of the device confirm that the tip of the drill guide device is broken.Based on the information provided we are currently unable to rule out a procedural variance as a contributing factor to the reported event.The device is an externally communicating device, it is neither manufactured nor intended for implantation.It is also not approved for long term internal tissue exposure and long-term implantation data is not available.The patient impact is determined to be the retained non implantable tip of the drill bit.Migration is unlikely as it was noted that the bit was left within the glenoid bone.A definitive root cause for the reported issue could not be determined.Factors that could have contributed to the failure include procedural variance, or deviations from established protocols, increasing risks and leading to unintended consequences.Other factors include excessive force to the device or an impact event inconsistent with normal use.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|