|
Reporter is a synthes employee.The device has been 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) 2020, the locking mechanism of the reduction forceps was discovered broken at the point where the screw attaches to forceps, which caused it not to lock.The issue was discovered during routine inspection of the device.There were no patient and surgical involvement.This report involves one (1) reduction forceps for 1.3 to 2.0mm screws/soft lock.This is report 1 of 1 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.H3, h4, h6: part: 03.130.291, lot: t121706, manufacturing site: tuttlingen, release to warehouse date: december 01, 2015.A review of the device history records was performed for the finished device lot number, and no non-conformances were identified.The raw material certificate was reviewed and the used material was according to the specification of the device.Visual inspection: the reduction forceps for 1.3 to 2.0mm screws/soft lock was received at us customer quality (cq).Upon visual inspection, the leaf spring was broken which secures the locking mechanism.The breakage was transverse in nature, the fragment of the break remained secured to the handle since the screw did not come undone.The overall complaint was confirmed.Dimensional inspection: no dimensional inspection was performed due to post manufacturing damage.Document/specification review: current and manufactured revisions were reviewed.No design issues or discrepancies were identified.Investigation conclusion: this complaint was confirmed as the leaf spring was broken.Although no definitive root-cause can be determined, it's possible the devices experienced unintended forces.There was no indication that a design or manufacturing issue contributed to the complaint.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.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.
|