|
Catalog Number NL6092 |
Device Problem
Break (1069)
|
Patient Problem
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
Event Date 05/13/2019 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Pr # (b)(4) on (b)(4) 2019 writer sent the customer an email acknowledging receipt of the complaint, providing the complaint tracking number and requested follow up information including as to if there was any patient impact related to this event.Writer provided contact information.Device not yet evaluated, if the device is evaluated a follow up will be sent.
|
|
Event Description
|
Via regulatory maude report: during revision of a knee replacement, the upper portion of the jaw of a v mueller nl6092 pituitary forcep broke.The broken portion of the instrument was retrieved.Fda safety report id#.On 11jun2019 additional information: what was the procedure that was being performed? revision of total knee replacement.Did any part the instrument fall into the patient¿s body, and if so how was it retrieved? yes.Retrieved with forcep.Was there a medical procedure performed to verify if the instrument was in the patient¿s body, such as an x-ray? it was seen breaking and falling into the femoral canal, and then immediately retrieved.What was the patient¿s outcome? no issues immediately observed.Was the procedure completed as planned? yes.Can you please send all parts of the instrument for evaluation? yes.Do you have the lot number? possibly, xmee 12.No further information available.
|
|
Event Description
|
Via regulatory maude report: during revision of a knee replacement, the upper portion of the jaw of a v mueller nl6092 pituitary forcep broke.The broken portion of the instrument was retrieved.Fda safety report id#.11jun2019 additional information: 1.What was the procedure that was being performed? revision of total knee replacement.2.Did any part the instrument fall into the patient¿s body, and if so how was it retrieved? yes.Retrieved with forcep.3.Was there a medical procedure performed to verify if the instrument was in the patient¿s body, such as an x-ray? it was seen breaking and falling into the femoral canal, and then immediately retrieved.4.What was the patient¿s outcome? no issues immediately observed.5.Was the procedure completed as planned? yes.6.Can you please send all parts of the instrument for evaluation? yes.7.Do you have the lot number? possibly, xmee 12.No further information available.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Pr # 1000273 follow up mdr - the sample was provided, and an evaluation was performed.The root cause is overstressing of the 13-year-old instrument.The hardness was tested at 47.1 hrc, which is inside the tolerance of 43-48 hrc.Notches in the cutting edge indicate that the instrument may have been dull and thus have been overstressed.There have been no issues identified with the material or manufacturing process.The product has been manufactured and tested according to the specifications.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|