This follow-up is being submitted to relay additional information.Updated: b4, b5, g3, g6, h1, h2, h3, h6, and h10.Corrected: h6 (health effect - impact code & health effect - clinical code).Evaluation of the returned device found it to exhibit signs of repeated use (nicked or gouged) and the post feature has fractured off, all pieces returned.Medical records were not provided.Device history record (dhr) was reviewed for deviations and/ or anomalies with no deviations / anomalies identified.A definitive root cause cannot be determined.Evaluation of the returned device identified the fracture was consistent with the tasp fractures previously analyzed in a zrm.The zrm identified that the common failure modes for the tasp devices include either bending overload or low cycle fatigue culminating in bending overload as evident by the presence of hackle marks, river lines and striations features on the fracture surface.If any further information is found which would change or alter any conclusions or information, a supplemental will be filed accordingly.Zimmer biomet will continue to monitor for trends.
|