|
This report is being submitted to relay additional information and device evaluation.The following sections are being reported: b4: date of this report was updated.G3: date received by manufacturer was updated.G6: type of report was updated.H2: type of follow up was updated.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer was updated.H6: type of investigation codes were added: 4109, 4111 and 3331.H6: investigation findings code was added: 213.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 67.H10: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the reported implant for evaluation.Visual evaluation of the as-returned devices identified the implant with signs of use, and was observed attached to a third party removal tool.The implant showed signs of being trephined.The alleged implant fracture was not identified.Functional testing to recreate the reported event could not be performed due to the nature of the device and event.This complaint refers to the specific device being investigated for this complaint record.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot number.No deviations or non-conformances, which could have caused or contributed to the reported event, were noted as part of the dhr.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot number for similar events and no other complaint was identified.The customer did not submit images for the reported event.A definitive root cause could not be determined since the implant malfunction did not occur, and the reported event has been unconfirmed following visual and physical evaluation.Therefore, based on the available information, the implant malfunction did not occur.The reported event was unconfirmed with all the available information.No further investigation or immediate capa/hhe/descalation is required, as the complaint investigation did not confirm the product was nonconforming at the time of distribution, and no new failure mode, harm, or hazardous situation was identified through the investigation performed.
|