Internal complaint reference: case (b)(4).Literature reference: sever gb, cankus mc, karsli b.Comparison of two different proximal femoral nails in instabil intertrochanteric fractures concerning radiological parameters.Ulus travma acil cerrahi derg.2021 may;27(3):344-350.English.Doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.41343.Pmid: 33884599.
|
It was reported that on literature review "comparison of two different proximal femoral nails in instabil intertrochanteric fractures concerning radiological parameters", one (1) patient suffered from varus collapse, cut-out and tip apex distance (tad) of 52 mm after an intertrochanteric fracture treatment with an intertan intertrochanteric antegrade nail.The event was treated with a secondary surgery (partial endoprosthesis).The outcome of the patient is unknown.No further information is available.
|
The device was not returned for evaluation and the reported event could not be confirmed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, the literature article was reviewed.The images provided in the article have been interpreted within the text; therefore, no further analysis of the images is required.Without clinically relevant patient-specific supporting documentation, a thorough medical investigation could not be performed.The root cause and/or patient outcome beyond that which was documented in the article could not be confirmed nor concluded; therefore, no further medical assessment is warranted at this time.Should additional medical information be provided this complaint will be re-assessed.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.Possible causes could include but not limited to surgical technique used, size of device or user/procedural variance, traumatic injury, patient anatomy or abnormal loading of limb the contribution of the device to the reported event could not be corroborated.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Without the return of the actual product involved, our investigation could not proceed.Should the device or additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|