R3 LNR MPACTOR HD II 36MM

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

INTERNAL COMPLAINT REFERENCE: (B)(4). REPORTED DEVICE WAS RETURNED FOR EVALUATION. SECTIONS D5, D9, H3 AND H4 WERE UPDATED.

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

INTERNAL COMPLAINT REFERENCE: (B)(4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: H3: WAS THE DEVICE EVALUATED BY THE MANUFACTURER? AND EVALUATION SUMMARY ATTACHED; H6: COMPONENT CODE, TYPE OF INVESTIGATION, INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, AND INVESTIGATION CONCLUSIONS; H8: USAGE OF DEVICE. H11: THE ASSOCIATED DEVICE WAS RETURNED AND EVALUATED. THE VISUAL INSPECTION REVEALED THAT THE DEVICE RETURNED WITH HEAVY WEAR FROM USE AND THE MOLDED HEAD FRACTURED INTO SEVERAL PIECES A REVIEW OF THE PRODUCTION ORDER DID NOT REVEAL A MANUFACTURING ABNORMALITY THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTED INCIDENT. A REVIEW OF COMPLAINT HISTORY BASED ON THE HISTORICAL DATA REVEALED SIMILAR EVENTS FOR THE LISTED BATCH, THIS FAILURE MODE WILL BE MONITORED FOR FUTURE COMPLAINTS FOR ANY NECESSARY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. A REVIEW OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT FILE REVEALED THIS FAILURE MODE WAS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED. THE ANTICIPATED RISK LEVEL IS STILL ADEQUATE. A HISTORICAL REVIEW CONCLUDED THAT THERE ARE NO PRIOR ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS PRODUCT AND EVENT. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRODUCT FAILED TO MEET ANY SPECIFICATIONS AT THE TIME OF MANUFACTURE. THIS DEVICE IS A REUSABLE INSTRUMENT THAT CAN BE EXPOSED TO NUMEROUS SURGERIES. DAMAGE FROM PROLONGED USE, MISUSE OR ROUGH HANDLING ARE LIKELY POTENTIAL FACTORS THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPORTED EVENT. WE RECOMMEND THAT ALL REUSABLE INSTRUMENTS BE ROUTINELY INSPECTED FOR WEAR AND DAMAGE AND REPLACED AS NECESSARY. BASED ON THIS INVESTIGATION, THE NEED FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION IS NOT INDICATED. SHOULD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BE RECEIVED, THE COMPLAINT WILL BE REOPENED. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS WARRANTED FOR THIS COMPLAINT; HOWEVER, WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FOR FUTURE COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATE AS NECESSARY.

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

INTERNAL COMPLAINT REFERENCE: (B)(4). THIS COMPLAINT WAS OPENED BY SMITH+NEPHEW TO DOCUMENT A PRODUCT PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH A SMITH+NEPHEW DEVICE. THE REPORTED PROBLEM RELATES TO KNOWN RISKS WITH THE DEVICE ITSELF OR WITH ITS USE THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY DOCUMENTED IN OUR RISK FILES. SMITH+NEPHEW WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR TRENDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR POST-MARKET SURVEILLANCE PROCESS AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS REQUIRED IF ANTICIPATED SEVERITY AND/OR OCCURRENCE RATES ARE EXCEEDED. SMITH+NEPHEW HAS NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THE PRODUCT FAILED TO MEET ANY SPECIFICATIONS AT THE TIME OF MANUFACTURE. BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF ALL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A DEFINITIVE ROOT CAUSE. HOWEVER, AS THE USE OF OUR PRODUCT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR TO THE REPORTED ISSUE, WE ARE SUBMITTING THIS REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. IF ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS OR INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE THAT ALTERS THE CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT, A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED AS REQUIRED.

Description of Event or Problem

IT WAS REPORTED THAT, DURING A THA SURGERY, ONE (1) R3 LNR MPACTOR HD II 36MM SPLIT IN HALF UPON IMPACTION. THE PROCEDURE WAS RESUMED, WITHOUT ANY DELAY, USING A SIMILAR S+N BACK-UP PRODUCT (32MM LINER IMPACTOR HEAD). NO FURTHER COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED.