|
If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Evaluation statement: mitek complaints received only a tiny fragment of the anchor for evaluation.This complaint can be confirmed.However, we cannot discern a root cause for this failure with the returned fragment of the anchor.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 and therefore there is no internally assignable cause for the reported problem.Further, a review into the depuy mitek complaints system revealed one other complaint from the same facility for this lot that was released to distribution on september 4, 2012.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.
|
|
The customer reported that during an endo eyebrow lift, the customer's tacit anchor broke in half while being inserted.Half of the anchor remained on the inserter, the other half is contained.The surgeon completed the procedure using another like device.There were no patient consequences.The surgeon was concerned since this is the second time this has happened and requested a new inserter be sent to them.
|