• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. INTERTAN 1.5 11.5MMX36CM 125D LT; NAIL, FIXATION, BONE

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. INTERTAN 1.5 11.5MMX36CM 125D LT; NAIL, FIXATION, BONE Back to Search Results
Catalog Number 71676555
Device Problem Fracture (1260)
Patient Problems Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Foreign Body In Patient (2687); Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
Event Date 10/07/2023
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).
 
Event Description
It was reported that, during the removal of an internal fixation, the screws could be explanted without any problem; however, the intertan 1.5 11.5mmx36cm 125d lt was found to be fractured while explanting it.It was only possible to explant the proximal part of the nail, the distal part remained inside intramedullary canal and without the possibility of being removed in the same surgery as the necessary instruments were not available.The procedure was finished after a delay greater than 30 minutes.Also, the surgeon decided to prolong the patient hospitalization to verify the fracture consolidation.The patient health status was reported as stable.
 
Event Description
It was reported that, a surgery was scheduled due to the pain that the patient reported, during the removal of an internal fixation, the screws could be explanted without any problem; however, the intertan 1.5 11.5mmx36cm 125d lt was found to be fractured while explanting it.It was only possible to explant the proximal part of the nail, the distal part remained inside intramedullary canal and without the possibility of being removed in the same surgery as the necessary instruments were not available.The procedure was finished after a delay greater than 30 minutes.Also, the surgeon decided to prolong the patient hospitalization to verify the fracture consolidation.The patient health status was reported as stable.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
H10: additional information h2: updated section b5, and h6 (clinical code and impact code).
 
Manufacturer Narrative
H2: additional information ¿h6: health effect - clinical code¿.H3, h6: the associated device was returned and evaluated.A visual inspection of the returned device reveals the intertan nail fractured in half.Only one piece was returned.The visual also reveals nails were returned with signs of wear.The im nail fractured by the initiation and subsequent propagation of fatigue cracking.The fatigue cracking eventually propagated to an extent that the remaining cross-sectional area of the nail could not bear the imposed patient loading, which led to an overload fracture.Fatigue cracking was likely caused by the nail bearing cyclic stresses more than the material endurance limit for an extended period of time.These excessive cyclic stresses may be caused by any number of conditions, including but not limited to excessive patient activity levels prior to full bone union, applications of loads in excess of the material¿s strength, and/or poor bone quality.A review of complaint history for the part number over the past 12 months and for the batch number based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed device.The clinical/medical evaluation concluded that in the absence of the requested clinical documentation, the root cause of the breakage could not be definitely concluded.However, we cannot rule out persistent fracture, early weight bearing, and trauma as factors which could lead to the reported nail breakage.The lack of the necessary instruments to remove the nail in its entirety led to the retention of the distal portion of the nail.Since the distal portion of the nail remains unfixed within the medullary canal, the potential for micro-motion and/or migration cannot be ruled out.Biocompatibility is not an issue as the nail is composed of biocompatible material, titanium alloy, that is intended for implantation.The impact to the patient includes the pain, prolonged additional surgery and hospitalization.The patient will undergo an additional surgery to remove the distal part of the nail and it is unknown the future impact beyond this.No further clinical assessment could be rendered at this time.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.At this time, we do not have reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any product specifications at the time of manufacture.A review of the risk management and information for use files revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.Assessment of historical escalated cases concluded that there are no prior actions related to this device and failure mode.A review of instructions for use for intramedullary nail system revealed in possible adverse effects that cracking or fracture of the implant may occur.Preoperative planning section states that proper type and size of implant must be selected to ensure effective treatment of patients considering factors such as patient¿s size, strength, skeletal characteristics, skeletal health, and general health.Overweight or musculoskeletal deficient or unhealthy patients may create greater loads on implants that may lead to breakage or other failure of the implants.Additionally, postoperative care section warns that early weight bearing substantially increases implant loading and increases the risk of breaking the device.According with inspection drawing, the final inspection includes the verification of part configuration per print.Also, per material specification, shall control the quality and manufacture of standard grade titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium alloy.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
INTERTAN 1.5 11.5MMX36CM 125D LT
Type of Device
NAIL, FIXATION, BONE
Manufacturer (Section D)
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
1450 brooks rd.
memphis TN 38116
Manufacturer (Section G)
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
1450 brooks rd.
memphis TN 38116
Manufacturer Contact
holly topping
7000 west william cannon drive
austin, TX 78735
5123913905
MDR Report Key18033207
MDR Text Key326880244
Report Number1020279-2023-02095
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code JDS
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeCO
PMA/PMN Number
K210980
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Other,Foreign,Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 12/05/2023
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received10/30/2023
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue Number71676555
Device Lot Number17FT88743
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received11/30/2023
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured06/19/2017
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Hospitalization; Other;
Patient Age65 YR
Patient SexMale
Patient Weight70 KG
-
-