|
Device evaluated by mfr: part: 04.647.1038s; lot: l969600; manufacturing site: (b)(4); release to warehouse date: july 16, 2018; expiry date: july 01, 2028.60010139, round 20.0mm peek optima with lot number l856159 was identified as used raw material.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot number, and no non-conformances were identified.Visual inspection: the zero-p va implant 8mm height convex-sterile was received at us customer quality (cq) with the peek portion of the device separated from the titanium plate.The peek showed some fragments have broken off from the device.This is consistent with the reported complaint condition, thus confirming the complaint.Functional test: the peek portion of the device was able to click into place onto the titanium plate.It is difficult to separate the two pieces of the device once they have been clicked into position therefore the complaint could not be replicated.However, during surgery, when the screws are being placed into the device, it is highly likely that the forces involved could have caused the separation of the titanium plate from the peek.Dimensional inspection: dimensional analysis was completed.The inner length of the titanium plate where the peek clicks in measured within specification, based on drawing.The outer length of the peek where it clicks onto the titanium plate measured within specification, based on drawing.Document/specification review: the following drawings were reviewed: plate_complete, plate size 5 ¿ 12, spacer convex size 5 ¿ 12 peek.60010139 round 20.0mm peek optima with lot number l856159 was identified as used raw material.Conclusion: the complaint condition is confirmed as the zero-p va implant 8mm height convex-sterile was received with the peek portion of the device separated and chipped with fragments missing from the device.There is no indication that a design or manufacturing issue contributed to the complaint.While no definitive root cause could be determined, it is possible that the device encountered unintended forces.No new malfunctions were observed during the course of this investigation.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post market safety surveillance activities.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.
|
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2019, the surgeon was performing a c3-c7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (acdf) at levels c3-4, c4-5, and c5-6.When the surgeon implanted a zero-p va implant at c6-7, it was noticed that something appeared wrong with the cage.The surgeon put in a 3.7 cervical spine screw 16mm and a 3.7 cervical spine screw 18mm to lock it in place per the recommended technique, but was still not satisfied.The surgeon commented that the cage had separated from the plate.He removed the cage, plate and two (2) screws and requested different implants.A new implant was opened and the procedure was concluded as planned.There was a surgical delay of five (5) minutes.No patient consequence was reported.This report is for a zero-p va implant.This is report 3 of 3 for (b)(4).
|