|
Zimvie complaint number (b)(4).A4: weight unknown / not provided.G4: additional pma/510(k) number ¿ k101880.The device will not be returned for analysis; however, an investigation of the reported event is in progress.Once the investigation has been completed, a follow-up mdr will be submitted.
|
|
This report is being submitted to relay additional information and device evaluation.Correction: d4: unique device identifier was previously submitted incorrectly as (b)(4).The correct unique device identifier number is n/a.The following sections are being reported: b4: date of this report was updated.D4: unique device identifier number was updated.D9: device availability and return date were 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, 4109, 3331 and 4111.H6: investigation findings code was added: 213.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 4315.H11: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the reported device for evaluation.Visual evaluation of the as returned device identified the implant with signs of use, apparent bone/tissue attached to external threads.The implant was identified as reported however, no apparent malfunction was identified with the implant that would contribute to the reported event.Implant matched prints where measured.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.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root causes determined from the investigation are incorrect treatment planning and patient factors.Therefore, based on the available information, a device malfunction did not occur.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.
|