|
Udi: (b)(4).The batch review 3443260 showed that the devices were conformed to in process and finished goods specifications when released to stock the 10 aug.2010.Expiration date: 2013-07 (according to retained labels).Nc was opened relating to deals with the use of non accepted sutures in production (waiting for test results).Tests were conformed and sutures accepted after their use in production, with no link with this complaint.Nc was opened relating to deals with the use of a too high tensile strength to assemble sutures which broke during the assembly process.New parameters were validated for this suture, with no link with this complaint.Evaluation statement: the complaint device is not being returned; it was discarded by the customer and therefore is unavailable for a physical evaluation.A batch record review has been conducted to determine if there were any internal processing issues which would have contributed to the nature of the product complaint.Our results indicate that this batch of product was processed without incident as related to the reported problem, and therefore there is no internally assignable cause for the reported problem.Further, a review into the depuy mitek complaints system revealed no other complaints of any kind for this lot of devices that were released to distribution.While the complaint event information indicates the anchor was possibly off axis to the bone hole during the insertion attempt which may have caused or contributed to the anchor breaking, we cannot discern a root cause for the reported failure mode.At this point in time, no corrective action is required and no further action is warranted.However, depuy mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.This report is being filed from the remetrex complaint management system as required under mitek's corrective and preventative actions (capa) to file usa fda mdr missed malfunctions.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
The surgeon was doing a bankart repair and when trying to insert the tip of the anchor into the hole one side of the tip broke off.Retrieved the piece of the anchor that broke.Opened a new anchor and completed the case with no problems.The patient, a female estimated to be in her upper 20's to early 30's, had average bone quality.The patient had other surgeries in her past, a prior shoulder scope that did not involve any anchors, and a back surgery.This surgery remained arthroscopic after the complaint device broke.The procedure was extended 3 to 5 minutes due to the anchor breaking.The complaint device was removed and discarded.The sales rep stated that she believes the surgeon was off axis during insertion at the time the tip of the anchor broke.
|