|
Product complaint # (b)(4).This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy synthes, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.H11 additional manufacturer narrative: d4: udi: as the lot number for the device involved in the event was not provided, the full udi is currently not available.
|
|
It was reported that the patient arrived at surgery with intertrocanteric fracture.The patient had previously undergone knee prosthesis revision.The specialist initially wanted to place a short tfna nail.An entry point was established, and the canal was reamed.The front-cutting reamer broke when it hit the prosthesis stem, leaving part of it in the canal.The surgical pin was changed to a dhs pin.
|
|
Depuy synthes is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which depuy synthes has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, depuy synthes or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If the information is unknown, not available or does not apply, the section/field of the form is left blank.H11 additional narrative: photo investigation: the product was not returned to medtech orthopaedics; however, photos were provided for review.The photo investigation revealed that synream reamer head ø8.5] had broken.The observed condition of the device was consist with a random component failure that may have been caused by exposure to unintended force.The investigation was not able to confirm the allegation of embedded device as no x-rays were provided to evaluate the condition.Since the device was not returned, a dimensional inspection cannot be performed.The overall complaint was confirmed as the observed condition of the synream reamer head ø8.5 would contribute to the complained device issue.Based on the investigation findings, potential cause attributed to component failure and it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.There is no indication that a design or manufacturing issue has caused the complaint condition.As part of medtech orthopaedics quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.Device history review the device lot number is unknown, therefore a¿device history review could not be performed.If the lot/serial number becomes available, the record will be re-assessed.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|