It was reported from a literature study that the patient had the proximal screw dislodged and was managed by reinserting the screw-in.The affected device, used in treatment, was not returned for evaluation.Therefore a product analysis could not be performed.As device information was not made available, device history record and complaint history review cannot be completed.There is no information that would suggest the device failed to meet specifications.A relationship, if any, between the device and the reported incident could not be corroborated.A clinical analysis noted that one photo with three combined x-ray images labeled figure 5 in the article was provided for review however it is unknown which patient the x-ray photo was from.Per the review the dislodgement of the proximal screw was found in high fracture close to cervicotrochanteric area making it difficult to obtain good reduction.Based on the literature review dislodgement of the proximal screw was due to difficult anatomical reduction and poor screw position.Since no patient harm is being alleged and no further harm is anticipated, no further assessment is warranted at this time.Without the return of the actual product involved and no patient medical records available, our investigation of this report is inconclusive.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however smith and nephew will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.
|