It was reported that, after a trauma procedure on (b)(6) 2022, an intertan 10s 10mm x 18cm 125d broke postoperatively inside the patient.Revision surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2022 to remove the nail and replaced it with a new intertan nail.The surgeon believes it was a fatigue fracture as the patient did not have a fall or any other trauma.The patient had increasing pain in 8 weeks leading up to the fracture of the nail.The current health status of the patient is unknown.
|
H3, h6: the associated device was returned and evaluated.A visual inspection of the returned device did confirm the stated failure mode.The device was found to be fractured into two pieces, rendering the device inoperable.Both of the fractured components were returned.A review of complaint history revealed similar events for the listed device over the previous 12 months, but no similar events for the batch based on the historical data, this failure mode will be monitored for future complaints for any necessary corrective actions.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that based on the information provided, the clinical root cause of the fracture of the intertan nail and pain cannot be determined.The patient¿s weight bearing status and subject activity level, which were not provided, cannot be ruled out as contributing factors to the reported events.The patient impact beyond the pain and revision cannot be determined.However, it was reported that the patient is ¿much happier.¿ no further clinical assessment is warranted at this time.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management and information for use files revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.Assessment of historical escalated cases concluded that there are no prior actions related to this device and failure mode.According with inspection drawing, the final inspection includes the verification of part configuration per print.Also, material specification shall control the quality and manufacture of standard grade titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium alloy.A contribution of the device to the reported event could be corroborated as the device broke and a revision surgery was needed.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include limited range of motion, patient anatomy, postoperative care or abnormal loading of limb.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 future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.Internal complaint reference number: case-2022-00125237-1.
|