N
Patient 1
TO DATE THE DEVICE INVOLVED IN THE REPORTED INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED FOR EVALUATION. AN INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN INITIATED BASED ON THE REPORTED INFORMATION.
| Seq | Brand | Generic | Manufacturer | Product code | Model | Catalog | Lot | PMA | 510(k) | Implant | Evaluated | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SILICONE MCP SZ 10 | SILICONE MCP | ASCENSION ORTHOPEDICS | KYJ | SMCP-500-10-WW | 152843T | Y | Y |
| Sequence | Received | Treatment | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2017-08-22 | 0 | 1. R |
Patient 1
TO DATE THE DEVICE INVOLVED IN THE REPORTED INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED FOR EVALUATION. AN INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN INITIATED BASED ON THE REPORTED INFORMATION.
Patient 1
FOUR OF 4 REPORTS. OTHER MFG REPORT NUMBERS: 1651501-2017-00033,1651501-2017-00034,1651501-2017-00035. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE INITIAL SILICONE MCP ARTHROPLASTY WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2016. REVISION CASE WAS SCHEDULED FOR (B)(6) 2017; ONCE THE SURGEON NOTICED THAT THE INDEX FINGER OF THE IMPLANTS HAD FAILED, HE DECIDED TO CHECK ALL OF THE OTHER IMPLANTS (MIDDLE FINGER, RING FINGER, & SMALL FINGER) HAD ALSO FAILED OR ALMOST FAILED. THE INDEX FINGER SILICONE IMPLANT HAD BROKEN AT THE HINGE/DISTAL STEM OF THE SIZE 20 IMPLANT. THIS HAPPENED AS WELL TO THE MIDDLE FINGER SIZE 20 IMPLANT. THE SIZE 10 RING FINGER IMPLANT HAD NOT COMPLETELY FAILED BUT IT HAD A VISIBLE CUT AT THE HINGE/DISTAL STEM SECTION. THE SIZE 10 SMALL FINGER IMPLANT FAILED IN THE SAME FASHION.