Results of investigation: it was initially reported that a revision surgery was performed, due to "breakage of a nanos stem".With reception of the revision surgery report, it became clear that the stem was only damaged, however that the ball head (75007448, c1210928) was broken.During the revision surgery the s+n ball head, the nanos stem (ohst medizinaltechnik ag) and the inlay (third party manufacturer) were revised.How exactly the ball head, used in treatment, broke is not known, the patient was in pain and reported audible "crack".The medical documentation was reviewed.No x-rays and ct were provided, therefore the reported fracture cannot be confirmed.The root cause cannot be definitely concluded based on the available information.The batch records were reviewed, there were no deviations from standard manufacturing processes found.A material certificate review at the supplier did not show any deviations.A complaint history review did not show any further complaint for the batch in question.The risk of an ball head fracture is covered through the corresponding risk management files.In the ifu (12.23.Ed 05/16) implant fractures are listed as potential risks.To what extent the combination of the ball head and the third party inlay contributed to the fracture cannot be assessed.Based on the available information, the failure mode cannot be confirmed.The root cause cannot be established.If further information or the ball head becomes available, this complaint will be reassessed.To date, the need for further action is not indicated.Smith and nephew will monitor this device for further similar incidents.
|