|
Correction - please refer to: b5 exec summary, d1 product long description, d4 (catalog, lot, gtin #'s), d9 product available to stryker, h6 (method & results) codes.The reported event could be not confirmed, since no x-rays were provided and because the returned screw is not in a condition that would indicate an issue as described in the event description.The device inspection revealed the following: the reported locking screw was returned for evaluation, the affected plate did based on the provided information remain in the patient.The visual inspection has shown that the thread flanks at the shaft are slightly worn, but in retrospective is cannot be defined if this occurred by a slight contact with the peripro plate or with a intramedullary implant that was already present.At the t20 recess are slight deformations, that can be traced back to the screw insertion, visible.The microscopic inspection of the locking thread did show that the thread flanks are in a good condition, with just slight wear marks.There is no indication for an excessive contact with the plate.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.No product related issue could be detected.Without x-rays, that would shown the positioning of the screw, and without the affected plate, that would show the condition of the universal hole, the root cause of this event cannot be defined.There are too many factors, like insertion angle, insertion force or patient related factors in regards to the bone quality or already placed implants that could have played a role.If the also affected plate is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|