Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Additional device product code is hrx.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.(b)(6).The subject device was received.The investigation could not be completed, and no conclusion could be drawn, as product is entering the complaint system.A device history record (dhr) review for the reported subject device lot has been requested.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
A device history record review was performed for the subject device lot number 7312608.Supplier: (b)(4).Date of manufacture: 19 aug 2013.The review showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.No non-conformances were generated during the production of the subject device.A manufacturing investigation was performed for the subject device (drive shaft-minimum 520 mm length-for use with ria, part number 314.743, lot number 7312608).The subject device was returned to the manufacturer with the complaint condition stating: during the investigation, no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.A visual inspection under 5x magnification, device history record (dhr) review, and drawing review were performed as part of this investigation.This complaint is confirmed, as the distal tip of the ria is broken off.Although a definitive root cause could not be determined, the complaint condition was most likely caused by force applied to the distal end of the drive shaft, resulting in stresses beyond the failure limit.Other clinical factors such as the patient¿s condition and physical attributes could have impacted the positioning of the instrument, or lateral forces during surgery, that are unable to be replicated in the cq, may have been acting on the instrument.The drive shaft was received with the distal tip, which mates with the reamer head, broken off.The broken portion was not received.The break is located approximately 5.78 to 8.96 mm distal to the distal edge of the drive shaft helix.The helix is intact and in good condition.Additionally, the device also has minor surface wear which does not impact functionality.Replication of the complaint condition is not applicable as the device was received in broken condition.Measurements taken with calipers.The following drawings for the device were reviewed, and no drawing issues or discrepancies were noted.The design is adequate for its intended use and did not contribute to this complaint condition.The complaint condition was most likely caused by force applied to the distal end of the drive shaft resulting in stresses beyond the failure limit.Other clinical factors such as the patient¿s condition and physical attributes could have impacted the positioning of the instrument, or lateral forces during surgery, that are unable to be replicated in the cq, may have been acting on the instrument.The root cause could not be definitively determined as the circumstances at the time of the break are unknown.It is not likely that the design of the device contributed to this complaint.No new, unique or different patient harms were identified as a result of this evaluation.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|