|
The complaint form was unclear if a part of the broken extractor was left in the patient.It has been confirmed no part was left in the patient.Manufacturer narrative: the reason for this complaint was to report the tip of the slap hammer broke.This event occurred during inspection away from the patient.There was another suitable device available, the incident did not cause a delay in surgery, surgery was completed as intended and there was no risk to the patient noted.Examination of the returned slap hammer shows the extractor has broken off from the stop.The reported condition could possibly be a result of heavy use/misuse/wear and care must be taken to avoid compromising their performance.Refer to instrument instruction for use (ifu) 0400-0146 "recommendations for the care and handling for (b)(4) instruments.A review of the device history record (dhr) revealed the product was manufactured to revision level specifications.Based on the released date the instrument may have been in service for over 7 years.A review of the product complaint report history showed there have been (b)(4) prior complaints reported against this part: 15 broke/cracked/damaged, 1 siezed or galled, 11 blank.This is the first complaint against this lot number.The root cause for this event is attributable to damage incurred from prolonged use and through misuse or rough handling which surgical instruments are subjected to.This is not an event associated with a product failure, malfunction or issue.Surgical instruments condition can be determined while being used for its intended purpose.The replacement of surgical instruments due to normal wear and tear does not indicate a product deficiency, failure or issue.There are no indications that this instrument has a design or material deficiency therefore no containment of inventory is required.Event is associated with instrument usage, not a design or manufacturing issue.
|