|
(b)(4).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 an orthopedic procedure, the tensioner would not release an unknown wire and ended up broken.The surgeon had to manually twist it off and used the backup tensioner.There were no fragments generated.The broken device was removed easily without additional intervention.There was a surgical delay of 5 minutes.The procedure was successfully completed.The patient was not affected and there were no patient consequences reported.This complaint involves two (2) devices.This report is for one (1) tensioner.This is report is 1 of 2 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.Not applicable as no additional intervention required during procedure.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.
|
|
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.Visual inspection: the clamp jaws as well as the conical sleeve of the universal chuck are badly damaged.The shaft of the t-handle has come loose.The overall appearance of the front part of the chuck is in very used condition.Functional test / dimensional inspection: could not be performed due to the damage incurred.Document/specification review: the manufacturing review shows that the production procedure was according to the specifications and there were no issues that would contribute to this complaint condition.A review of the manufacturing drawings and the corresponding dcos showed that the same deviations as with these complaints were examined in detail by the development department.A corrective action was that the torque value for tightening the reaction fork, component 50167454, has been increased from 5 nm to 23 nm.Further, the functional issues have been addressed and investigated under eu capa in 2013.Summary: the complaint condition is confirmed and consistent with the reported condition as the reaction fork was identified as loose and, therefore, the function of the tensioner can no longer be guaranteed.Replication of the complaint condition is not applicable as the device is already mating device was not received.The complaint condition is a result of the design but it has already been addressed by dco and capa.The current design was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.No production errors were detected during the manufacturing inspection.The risk assessment was found to adequately address the complaint condition.A corrective and/or preventative action is proposed or already launched.Device history: supplier, part: 03.311.001, lot: 1542289, manufacturing site: haegendorf, release to warehouse date: 23.Aug.2006.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot number, and no non-conformances were identified.Synthes: part: 03.311.001, lot: 1586977, manufacturing site: haegendorf, release to warehouse date: 29.Nov.2006.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot number, and no non-conformances were identified.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.
|