An event regarding an appearance issue (fray) involving a triathlon insert was reported.The reported lines were visible however the product was confirmed to be visually within specification.Method & results: device evaluation and results: the insert was returned for evaluation, while a slight inconsistent edge is noticed on the posterior of the condyle, the implant was visually inspected by operators trained to the inspection of tibial inserts.The ¿fray¿ was not able to be verified through standard visual inspection methods per the requirements set forth in (b)(4) during this investigation.No other visual defects which may constitute a ¿fray¿ or burr could be observed.See memo for further detail.Clinician review: no medical records were received for review with a clinical consultant.Device history review: all devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no relevant reported discrepancies.Complaint history review: there have been no other similar events for the reported lot.Conclusion: the product manufacturing cell representative completed a thorough evaluation of the returned device which indicated the following: the complaint was opened for a ¿fray¿ that a surgeon noticed prior to implantation.From the device history record (dhr) of this lot, it can be shown that the lot was machined at stryker integrated manufacturing in kalamazoo under the poly subcomponent p/n and identical lot id of 9532-g-411 / 99044018, respectively.The lot was received in the tibial plastics cell at stryker mahwah where it underwent vendor inspection with wire insertion and subsequently final cleaning, packaging and sterilization steps.Specifically, at the vendor inspection/assembly operation, the operator would have visually inspected all pieces and then performed wire insertion in accordance with procedures (b)(4), manual wire assembly procedure for uhmwpe tibial bearings and (b)(4), procedure for appearance screening of uhmwpe implants.It is at this operation where operators would inspect for burrs (frays) which may have been created during the machining process at kalamazoo and perform deburring, if required, to ensure conformance of the implant to (b)(4).After the unit from the complaint was returned, the implant was visually inspected by operators trained to the inspection of tibial inserts.The ¿fray¿ was not able to be verified through standard visual inspection methods per the requirements set forth in (b)(4) during this investigation.No other visual defects which may constitute a ¿fray¿ or burr could be observed.Dynamic control plan (dcp) (b)(4) which governs this product line and operation describes the potential occurrence of excess burrs at a rate of 1, corresponding to (b)(4) units for kalamazoo machined implants.This occurrence rate has not been exceeded through the existence, if any, of previous complaints for similar issues.Thus, with the visual defect being unable to be confirmed coupled with the occurrence rate of the defect below the specified threshold within the dcp, a nc is not warranted for complaint.
|