LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Company News/Integra Receives FDA Warning Over Quality System
Company News

Integra Receives FDA Warning Over Quality System

November 20, 2012 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Integra Receives FDA Warning Over Quality System
Image created by RRY Publications, LLC. Sources: FDA and corporate logo
Secondary

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent a warning letter to Integra LifeSciences Holding Corporation in regard to quality systems issues at its manufacturing facility in Andover, England. The letter followed a June 2012, inspection of the facility.

The warning letter cited inadequate CAPA (corrective action preventive action) compliance, lack of testing documentation, missing self-imposed timelines and a failure to have a customer service rep at quality management review meetings.

Integra officials note that the warning letter does not restrict the company’s ability to manufacture or ship products or import them into the United States. Neither does it require the recall of products.

Specifically, here’s what the FDA said their inspectors found:

1. Inadequate CAPA plan.

The company did not have appropriate statistical methodology in place to identify existing or potential causes of nonconforming product or other quality problems. In addition, the company did not have adequate effectiveness checks to assess that the root cause of a failure has been addressed and CAPA triggers were not followed.

2. Failure to ensure with a high degree of assurance that inspection and testing processes are valid.

The company had no documentation to demonstrate validation of the manufacturing process for a tip used with the Selector ultrasound aspiration device. The company performed hourly inspections and functional tests but full verification of dimensional measurements were not performed.

3. Inadequate procedures for quality audits.

The company’s internal Quality Audits procedure states that the maximum close-out period related to nonconformances found during internal audits is one calendar month. However the FDA found that several nonconformances had not been closed within the one calendar month timeframe. In addition, 7 out of 13 audits conducted in 2012 were not closed within the one calendar month timeframe.

4. Inadequate review of quality systems.

The company’s Quality Management Review procedure states that invited participants, if unable to attend the Quality Management Review Meeting, must send a designee in their place. However, there was no Customer Service representative, or a designee, at certain meetings. Additionally, there was no Production or Operations representative, or a designee, at a meeting held in December 2011.

The company’s management reports that it has provided detailed responses to the FDA as to its corrective actions on a monthly basis and, since the conclusion of the inspection, has undertaken significant efforts to remediate the observations. The Andover facility manufactures components of the CUSA ultrasonic aspirator system and intracranial pressure monitors. Sales of products manufactured in the Andover facility constituted less than 3% of Integra’s consolidated revenues in the 12 months ended September 30, 2012.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy