|
Product complaint #: (b)(4).If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Initial reporter occupation: non-healthcare professional: "attorney".(b)(4).
|
|
Product complaint #: (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.Based on previous investigations, this complication of joint replacement is unlikely to have been the result of a device failing to meet required specifications.The information received will be retained for potential series investigations if triggered by trend analysis, post market surveillance, or other events within the quality system.Per internal procedures, the event information and any investigational inputs received as part of required follow up were reviewed.For this investigation, no immediate action was required as no alleged deficiency with the device was identified.Monitor exempt per wi-7915 - known possible complication of joint replacement surgery.No device associated with this report was received for examination.In order to determine if a lot related issue was possible, a worldwide complaint database search was performed.A worldwide complaint database search found additional related reports against the provided product code, lot number combination.A device history record (dhr) review was conducted previously on wpc 8236-2010.Review of the device history records did not reveal any related manufacturing deviations or anomalies.The reported event is considered one of the possible complications of joint replacement.Investigational inputs were requested as indicated per internal procedures for this failure mode.The complaint information provided has been reviewed for complaint coding, medical device reporting, and other data required by the complaint system.Follow-up for additional event information, if applicable, was conducted utilizing work instruction wi-7915 appendix a.Without the physical complaint sample associated with this report, it was not possible to determine if the device failed to meet specifications at the time it was released for distribution.The device associated with this event was used in the treatment of the patient as prescribed by the presiding surgeon.From the event information received, it was not possible to determine the relationship of the device to the reported event.No evidence was found indicating product error was a contributing factor.The need for corrective action was not indicated.Depuy considers the investigation closed.Should additional info be received, the investigation will be re-opened as necessary.Device history lot : d58da1.Device history batch : null.Device history review: a device history record (dhr) review was conducted previously on wpc 8236-2010.Review of the device history records did not reveal any related manufacturing deviations or anomalies.
|