(b)(4).Complaint sample was evaluated and the reported event was confirmed.Visual examination of the returned device exhibits signs of repeated use has fractured in half and the post has fractured off.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.
|