| Model Number |
626677S |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Injury (2348); Implant Pain (4561)
|
| Date of Event |
06/27/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Upon completion of investigation, additional information will be provided in a supplemental report.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported: on (b)(6), the product was fixed with a fracture of the proximal ulna.The patient resumed daily activities a few days after surgery.On (b)(6) the patient complained of pain.When i took an x-ray, the plate was broken.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported event could be confirmed.The device inspection revealed the following: the device was returned, and is indeed broken at the level of the 4th locking hole.The surface of the breakage shows typical traces of a fatigue fracture: shiny surfaces on both bridges prove that the plate broke partially first, causing the two sides of the plate to rub against each other.The cracks of the material propagated with the mechanical loading, before the material gave in completely.Since an x-ray was provided, a clinical statement was requested for the evaluation of the provided medical data.The following statements were provided: "[.] from a personal/surgical point of view i would most probably not have used a 1/3 tubular plate for a proximal ulnar fracture.The forces on this bone are too big, especially if the patient started to take up daily activities.Personally i would have chosen a straight compression plate.These plates are much stronger and can withstand the forces from the muscles overarching the elbow joint.So the root cause in the breakage might lie in the fact that the chosen plate was not suitable for this type of fracture, especially not combined with the after care.[.]" therefore, the root cause can be attributed to both the user and the patient.It was due to an inadequate choice of the implant considering the aftercare expectations.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.If any further information is provided, the investigation report will be updated.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported: on (b)(6) , the product was fixed with a fracture of the proximal ulna.The patient resumed daily activities a few days after surgery.On(b)(6) , the patient complained of pain.When i took an x-ray, the plate was broken.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|