|
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 code was added: 10, 3331, 4109 and 4111.H6: investigation findings code was added: 213.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 67.H10: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the complaint device for evaluation.Visual evaluation was performed.The implant had signs of use with debris on its internal and external threads.The implant had markings from removal.There was no damage identified or signs of malfunction that would have contributed to the event.Measurements match drawing.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 one other complaint was identified.The customer did not submit images for the reported event.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root cause determined from the investigation was patient factors.Therefore, based on the available information, a device malfunction did not occur.Implant was returned with no damage that would cause or contribute to the event.The reported event was non-verifiable with all the available information.No further investigation or immediate capa / hhe/d escalation 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.
|