|
See h6 and h11 his complaint was opened to address the report of a dynaclip and dynaclip quattro staple revision removal surgery that occurred on (b)(6) 2025.The reported stated that two of the legs on the two-legged dynaclip staple broke midshaft and one of the dynaclip quattro legs had also broken off at the corner.These events resulted in a non-union at the nc joint.The product was not returned, nor were there any images provided by the representative; thus, a complete evaluation and investigation could not be completed.The dynaclip risk matrix was reviewed.The failure mode of the staple breaking post-operatively is recorded and accounted for.In the risk matrix, this failure mode is listed with the potential causes of failure as manufacturing error, improper dimensions, abnormal anatomy causes excessive strains on the staple, or a failed fusion.It is unknown if the surgical technique was adhered to as well as if the patient was compliant with the information provided, but there were no reported deviations.With the information provided, a definitive probable root cause remains unknown.The potential failure is ranked with a detection score of 2, device and patient severity of 3, and occurrence of 1.A historical search was conducted in the timeframe of (b)(6) 2024 to (b)(6) 2025 and results showed that this was the third occurrence of a complaint for this failure mode to the dynaclip family.Based on a sales volume of 3761 from (b)(6) 2024 to (b)(6) 2025, the occurrence level of remote is appropriate and over the year occurred at a (b)(4).Rate.The hazard is an anticipated risk within the risk analysis matrix and the current occurrences are within the anticipated threshold.Thus, this is not an indication of a systematic issue necessitating a capa investigation.The dynaclip risk analysis matrix was generated using the legacy medshape risk management sop occurrence level comparison is in alignment with that procedure.The hazard is an anticipated risk within the risk analysis matrix and the current occurrences are within the anticipated threshold.The probable root cause remains unknown.Thus, this is not an indication of a systematic issue necessitating a capa investigation.It will continue to be monitored.Therefore, no further action is needed.
|