The irregularity begins approximately.100" from the distal tip and travels up at a slight angle then back down to the.225 rod channel.The detached fragment which was removed from the patient, is approximately.099" in width by.240" long and manufactured from (b)(4) (stainless steel) which is processed and certified to astm a564 specifications.Examination of the fractured surface shows a flake of material partially removed from the surface.This is indicative of ductile fracture.The fractured surface does not appear to have experienced a fatigue failure.The direction of the flake of material indicates that a lateral force was applied to cause the failure.There was no indication of wear or gouging on the device surfaces.The lack of wear patterns or gouging on the surface of the device indicates that the device was not damaged in such a way to create a stress concentration or weak point on the device.The device most likely failed due to excessive lateral force put on the distal engagement tip.This excessive force may have been imparted directly to the device during manipulation or removal during surgery or by an improper attachment to the screw.If the screw was improperly attached, forces on the device would be transferred to the implant engagement surfaces.The international customer ((b)(6) ) explained what is meant by partial anesthesia.The area of extraction was numbed for removal.The patient was not put to sleep.
|
The initial surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2017.After the surgery while reviewing the ct and mri films ((b)(6) 2017), the surgeon noticed that there was a substance located at the s1.He decided to do a removal surgery, which was conducted with a partial anesthesia the next day (b)(6) 2017.
|