|
|
| Catalog Number |
72201772 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
05/07/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).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 a vd ligament procedure, the biosure screw failed to progress and it broke.The procedure was completed with a titanium screw from another company.There was a surgical delay of two hours, and no further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference case-(b)(4).H3, h6: a device deficiency was not identified, and the root cause of the reported event could not be determined since the device was not returned for evaluation.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found 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 material specification found that the storage requirements for the material are specified, and the material must comply with provided percentage composition specifications as measured by ash test.Factors that can contribute to the reported event include off-axis insertion, excessive force or torque, or improper preparation of the insertion site.Please refer to the instructions for use for precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.If any additional information related to this event is received in the future, this investigation will be reopened for further assessment.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: the reported device was received for evaluation.A visual evaluation showed the device was returned in original packaging with the batch number of the complaint on the label.The device is fractured at the distal tip.The fractured piece was not returned.A material characteristics assessment found that based on the condition of the product material found during visual inspection, it was determined that additional material testing is not required.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found 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 material specification found that the storage requirements for the material are specified, and the material must comply with provided percentage composition specifications as measured by ash test.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 factor lines include off-axis insertion, excessive force or torque, or improper preparation of the insertion site.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|