Device was used for treatment not diagnosis.Muller, f et al (2016) peri-implant femoral fractures: the risk is more than three times higher within pfn compared with dhs.Injury, int.J.Care injured 47, pp: 2189¿2194.This report is for an unknown proximal femoral nailing system or and unknown dynamic hip screw (dhs).The article does not specify which system the patient was implanted with.Investigation could not be completed and no conclusion could be drawn, as no devices were returned and no lot numbers or part numbers were provided.(b)(4).If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
This report is being filed after the subsequent review of the following journal article: muller, f et al (2016) peri-implant femoral fractures: the risk is more than three times higher within pfn compared with dhs.Injury, int.J.Care injured 47, pp: 2189¿2194.This study was performed as a retrospective study to provide scientific data concerning incidence and outcome of peri-implant femoral fractures (pif) following osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures (pff).This retrospective cohort study included only patients who had undergone surgery between january 1, 2006, and december 31, 2015.In terms of the type of osteosynthesis at the time of pif, 18 patients had a standard proximal femoral nail (pfn) (240 mm), 5 patients had a long pfn (380¿420 mm), and 3 patients had previously undergone dynamic hip screw (dhs).One revision was due to hematoma.This report is for an unknown proximal femoral nailing system or an unknown dynamic hip screw (dhs).This is report 2 of 2 for (b)(4).
|