|
The device was received, the investigation could not be completed, and no conclusion could be drawn, as product is entering the complaint system.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.If the information is unknown, not available or does not apply, the section/field of the form is left blank.H3, h6: a product investigation was conducted.Visual inspection: the small universal chuck with t-handle (part # 393.105/ lot # 8005523) was received at us cq.The device was received in the closed position with one of the teeth protruding further than the others.When opening the device, the tooth fell apart from the assembly.No defects were identified with the loose tooth.Upon magnification of the inner chuck it appears the inner ring that the tooth secures onto was mildly deformed.No other defects were identified.Functional test: the device was completely loosened by opening the chuck.When in its open position, the protruded tooth came apart from the assembly.There was no evidence of device breakage on the tooth, it appears the tooth has slid off the inner ring which holds it in place.The inner ring was mildly deformed, device re-assembly was not possible.No physical device breakage was identified but the overall complaint was confirmed as the ring was deformed which led to the device falling apart.The complaint was be replicated with the returned device(s), as tooth comes apart from the chuck.Dimensional inspection: dimensional inspection was not possible as device could not be disassembled to access relevant components.Conclusion: the overall complaint was confirmed for the received small universal chuck with t-handle as the tooth came apart from the assembly.Although no definitive root-cause can be determined its possible the device experienced unintended forces during use.There was no indication that a design or manufacturing issue contributed to the complaint.No design issues were observed during the document/specification review.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post market safety surveillance activities.H3, h4, h6: a device history record (dhr) review was conducted: part # 393.105, lot # 8005523, manufactured date : 03-august-2005.A manufacturing related potential cause was not suspected, therefore, per franchise complaint product investigation procedure (b)(4) no manufacturing record evaluation is required.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.
|