D4 (udi) : (b)(4) this follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional information.The following sections were updated: b4; b5; d4 (udi); g4; g7; h1; h2; h3; h6 complaint sample was evaluated and the reported event was confirmed.Evaluation of the returned device exhibits signs of repeated use (nicked or gouged) and is fractured on lateral side of post, not all pieces returned.Device history record (dhr) was reviewed and no discrepancies were found.A definitive root cause cannot be determined.Evaluation of the returned device identified the fracture was consistent with the tasp fractures analyzed in a zrm, which 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 report will be filed accordingly.Zimmer biomet will continue to monitor for trends.
|