|
Reported event: an event regarding alleged "size/fit issue" involving a trident liner was reported.The event was not confirmed.Method & results: -device evaluation and results: dimensional inspection of the returned device by the manufacturing engineer noted, "the returned device was re-inspected as per(b)(4) ver.2, and found to be failing for ¿c dimension, angle of taper, 0.079 dimension & q dimension¿ outside their respective tolerances.These features being out of specification are linked to the damaged observed on the part.A review of the original dhr confirmed that all parts inspected as part of this batch, were in specification at the time of manufacture.(the c dimension is aql2.5 in-process inspection).It is likely that the attempted implantation of the trident x3 liner resulted in the dimensions going out of specification.During the original in-process inspection, as per igs requirements, the ¿angle of taper, 0.079 dimension and q dimension¿ was checked on the first part of the original batch of 18 parts.All of the parts passed for these features at that stage.It follows that the ¿angle of taper, 0.079 dimension and q dimension diameter¿ feature went out of specification under the same attempted implantation of the trident x3 liner.All the features are linked to the outer sphere and locking detail of the part.The failure of these features and the damage observed on the front face, locking taper and outer sphere are deemed to be consistent with the attempted implantation of the trident x3 liner.Conclusion: the complaint is deemed not to be manufacturing related." -medical records received and evaluation: no medical records were received for review with a clinical consultant.-device history review: all devices in the reported lot were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.-complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the reported lot.Conclusions: the event was not confirmed and the root cause of the event could not be determined.Dimensional inspection of the returned device by the manufacturing engineer concluded." the complaint is deemed not to be manufacturing related." no further investigation is required.If additional relevant information becomes available this investigation will be reopened.
|