|
This complaint was opened for the report of a revision surgery that removed 2 dynaclip staples and 2 tiger screws due to a failed fusion.Later clarification indicated only one of the implants was associated with the non-union (3000-00-121212).The other implants were removed in preparation of the revision.The original surgery implant date was (b)(6) 2025 and the removal surgery occurred on (b)(6) 2025.No samples were returned, and no x-ray images were provided.The reporter indicated patient pain/discomfort which led to the revision.No inability to weight bear and no associated patient harm.The dynaclip risk matrix was reviewed.In it, the potential hazard of staple compression being insufficient for fusion resulting in the potential effect of a failed fusion of target site is documented and accounted for.It is ranked with a detection score of 2, patient severity of 3, device 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 first occurrence of a failed fusion in the dynaclip family with no break to the device.However, note that there were two other complaints with revision surgeries due to breakages.This is an isolated case, and the first occurrence of this failure mode reported within the product family.The hazard is an anticipated risk within the risk analysis matrix and a single occurrence is not an indication of a systematic issue necessitating a capa investigation.Therefore, no further action is needed.The dynaclip risk analysis matrix, was generated using the legacy medshape risk management sop, occurrence level comparison is in alignment with that procedure.
|