|
The device was received, the investigation is in progress, no conclusion could be drawn at the time of filing this report.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.
|
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2019, during intra-operative surgery, the trochanteric fixation nail set was found broken.This included the helical blade coupling screw, deg aiming arm trochanteric fixation nails, and helical blade inserter.The procedure was successfully completed.There was no patient consequence.This report is for one (1) helical blade coupling screw this is report 1 of 4 for (b)(4).
|
|
Depuy synthes is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which depuy synthes has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, depuy synthes or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy synthes, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.Supplier lot number: is10100.H3, h4, h6: a device history record (dhr) review was conducted: part number: 357.377, synthes lot number: 6038121, supplier lot number: is10100, release to warehouse date: 04-dec-2008, expiration date: n/a, supplier: (b)(4).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.H3, h6: a product investigation was conducted.Visual inspection: upon visual inspection, it was observed that the helical blade coupling screw was broken where the shaft of the device meets the cylindrical step.The device showed minimal surface wear otherwise with only minor scratches on the shaft of the device, consistent with the age of the device (10+ years).The received condition of the device was determined to agree with the complaint condition.The cause of the issue would not be determined.Dimensional inspection: due to post-manufacturing deformation, dimensional inspection could not be conducted was determined to be irrelevant to the complaint condition.Document/specification review:during the document/specification review the relevant drawings, reflecting the current and manufactured revision, were reviewed.Review of the device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of this product, and any subcomponents, which would contribute to this complaint condition.No material or hardness review was performed.Based on the visual inspection, the complaint has been confirmed.Investigation conclusion: as us customer quality was able to observe the complaint condition, the reported condition of broken (2+ pieces) intraoperatively was confirmed.During the investigation, no product design or manufacturing issues were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition; therefore, further corrective and/or preventive action is not required.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post market safety surveillance activities.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.
|