|
Reportedly there was no patient involvement.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Device history record (dhr): manufacturing date: week 38 in 2005.The dhr is no longer available in (b)(4) due to the age of the instrument (over 11 years old).The exact date of manufacture is unknown.Subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.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.
|
|
A product investigation was completed: the returned inserter (pdl404, a7oa38) is included in the prodisc-l (pdl) total disc replacement system and used during insertion of pdl implants.The returned inserter was received with its pin for superior bar missing and the superior bar was detached from the remainder of the inserter.Replication of the complaint condition is inapplicable since the complaint condition was confirmed upon inspection when the pin was found to be missing.As part of this investigation a visual inspection, drawing review, and root cause analysis were performed.Due to the age of the inserter its device history record is no longer available but it was found to have been manufactured during week 38 in 2005.The relevant drawings were reviewed and determined to be suitable for the intended design, application, and dimensional conformity when used and handled as recommended.No material review reports, non-conformance reports, or actions related to the complaint condition were generated during production of the returned part(s).Review of device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product(s) which would contribute to the complaint condition.During the investigation no unidentified product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Based on the available information it is not possible to determine a definitive root cause for the complaint condition.It is possible that the inserter was damaged due to rough handling during use and/or processing.The inserter is over 10 years old and it is also possible that routine usage over time contributed to the complaint condition.During the investigation no unidentified 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.
|