|
Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.No patient involvement.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.A review of the device history records has been completed.Manufacturing site: (b)(4).Manufacturing date: december 13, 2007 review of the device history record of (b)(4) showed that there were no issues at the time of manufacturing of this device that would contribute to the issue outlined in this complaint.A review of inspection records and certifications, confirm that the components and final product met inspection records.All (b)(4) parts of the lot were checked 100% and for function at the final inspection on 10-dec-2007 and found conforming.No non-conformance records (ncrs) were generated during production.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Additional narrative: a product investigation was completed: a device history record (dhr) review, visual inspection, and drawing review were performed as part of this investigation.The returned part was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.Per the technique guide, the screw and plate holding forceps (347.985) are noted as an additional or optional instrument in both the 1.5mm headless compression screw and the 2.4mm cannulated screw systems.The forceps are specifically utilized for screw and plate handling/placement intra-operatively.The complaint condition is confirmed as the device was received with the left tip broken and the right tip intact but bent laterally.The break on the left tip and origin of the bend on the right tip are each approximately 2mm from the distal tip.The broken portion was not received.The balance of the device shows surface wear consistent with use and is in functional condition.Thus, the complaint condition is confirmed and consistent with the reported condition.Replication of the complaint condition is not applicable as the device is already broken.Based on the date of manufactured the relevant drawings, reflecting the current and manufactured revision, were reviewed.During the investigation no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.The returned part was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.No definitive root cause was able to be determined as the circumstances leading to the failure are unknown.However, the condition is consistent with the distal tips being exposed to exceeding forces which would not be expected from typically use.During the investigation no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.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.
|