|
There was no known reported patient involvement associated with the complained event.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Patient code is used to capture the no patient involvement.The subject device has been received and the product evaluation is in progress.No conclusion can be drawn.A review of the device history records has been requested and is currently pending completion.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 device history record (dhr) review was performed for part number: 357.377, synthes lot number: is10435, supplier lot number: n/a: release to warehouse date: 18-mar-2010, expiration date: n/a, supplier: isimac machine company: no non-conformance reports (ncrs) were generated during production.Review of the device history record showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of this product, and any subcomponents, which would contribute to this complaint condition.A product investigation was performed.The helical blade coupling screw (part: 357.377, lot: is10435, mfg: 18-mar-2010) was received with the reported condition of ¿pre/post operatively broken: rm.¿ at customer quality, the returned helical blade coupling screw was inspected and the complaint of broken was confirmed.Visual inspection performed at customer quality observed that coupling screw broke at the threaded portion at its tip.Additionally, the cannulation in the cap portion was slightly rounded.Whether this complaint could be replicated is not applicable because the device was returned damaged.Relevant drawings for the returned device were reviewed (both current and from the time of manufacture) and determined to be suitable for the intended design and application when used as recommended.Dimensional analysis was performed at the breakage that falls within specifications per relevant drawing and based on the tolerance specified for threads in standards.A device history review was performed for the returned instrument¿s lot number and no ncrs, mrrs or complaint-related issues were identified with the lot number which may have contributed to the complaint condition.Also, based on the device history record review, there is no indication that any issues with material or material properties contributed to the complaint condition.While no definitive root cause could be determined it is possible that the age of the device and any unintended forces encountered by the device during its usage or handling could have led to complaint condition.During the investigation, no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.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.
|