|
The reported event could be confirmed based on the provided image of the patient.For additional information on the reported event it was reached out to the related sales representative.It was specified that the surgeon does not consider the reported event as an infection.He was not sure if he did something wrong or if the patient had some kind of reaction.Additionally the stryker senior global medical director was contacted to assess this complaint.He stated that based on the absence of any reports in literature, an allergic reaction to directinject is very unlikely.The device history record for the ¿directinject on demand ha cement¿ catalog # 79-45910, lot code # di17pq5 indicates (b)(4) nits were manufactured to specification and accepted into final stock on 2017-sep-11 with no reported discrepancies.Retain samples were brought back from storage facility, inspected and photographed by the investigation quality engineer at manufacturing location.The packaging integrity of the retain samples is intact.The obtained information was not sufficient to determine the complaint root cause.However, based on the investigation, the dhr review of the related manufacturing and quality documents, the check of the retain samples as well as based on the assessment of the stryker senior global medical director there is no indication for a design, material or manufacturing related issue.Therefore no corrective and/or preventive actions are deemed necessary at that time.The complaint is added to the complaint trend.The device was not returned for evaluation.
|