(b)(4) device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Complainant part is expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation, but has yet to be received.(b)(6).Device is not distributed in the united states, but is similar to device marketed in the usa.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.The investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
Product investigation summary: the tip of the returned reamer is broken off as reported.The reamer broke between the second (ø4.5) and the third (ø6.5) step, which indicates that the first 25mm are broken off.Reviewing the device history records (dhr) showed no deviation to the specifications.The article was manufactured in march, 2015.The overall condition shows a broken tip and some marks from use; otherwise, the article is in very good condition.Though there is not enough evidence to determine exactly how often the instrument had been used prior to this surgery, it is likely that highly applied mechanical forces led to this breakage.In order to prevent such problems, it is necessary for worn or damaged instruments to be replaced.No product fault could be detected.Device history record review: manufacturing site: (b)(4) - manufacturing date: march 2, 2015.No non-conformance reports were generated during production.Review of the device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.Device used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|