Catalog Number 352.085 |
Device Problems
Break (1069); Material Fragmentation (1261)
|
Patient Problems
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692); Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
|
Event Date 02/09/2016 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(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).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.
|
|
Event Description
|
Device report from synthes eu reports an event in (b)(6) as follows: during surgery, while the surgeon was reaming the intramedullary canal, the reamer head broke.There was a reported fifteen minute surgical delay to surgery.This is report 1 of 1 for com-(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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.
|
|
Event Description
|
Additional information - the broken fragments were left in the patient.There was no re-operation needed.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Additional narrative: subject device has been received; no conclusions could be drawn as the device is entering the complaint system.Device history record review: manufacturing location: (b)(4) - manufacturing date: december 4, 2012 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.Corrected data: the awareness date was inadvertently changed to (b)(6) 2016 on the second supplemental report.The event date was (b)(6) 2016, but the awareness date was (b)(4) 2016.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.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Additional narrative: product investigation summary: the received reamer head is broken apart at the end of the coupling hexagon as complained.Furthermore, there are stress marks behind the cutting edges, which are also worn.Not all fragments from the broken part were returned for evaluation.Due to the damage of the device, the relevant dimensions could not be verified.However, no non-conformance records were generated during production, as confirmed during the device history record review.There were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.Based on the provided information, the manufacturer is unable to determine an exact root cause; however, it is likely that a mechanical overload situation led to the damage of the received device.No product fault could be detected.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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|