The reported event could be confirmed with the help of x-rays provided and matches the alleged failure mode.The device inspection was not possible as the product was not returned for investigation.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.The instructions for use instructs user that: ¿contraindications - conditions presenting an increased risk of failure include: bone stock compromised by disease, infection or prior implantation that can not provide adequate support and/or fixation of the devices.Other medical or surgical conditions which would preclude the potential benefit of surgery.The following are the most frequent adverse effects involving the use of internal fracture fixation devices: delayed union or non-union of the fracture site.These devices can break when subjected to the increased loading associated with delayed unions and/or non-unions.Internal fixation devices are load sharing devices which are intended to hold fractured bone surfaces in apposition to facilitate healing.If healing is delayed or does not occur, the appliance may eventually break due to metal fatigue.Loads on the device produced by load bearing and the patient¿s activity level will dictate the longevity of the device.Conditions attributable to non-union, osteoporosis, osteomalicia, diabetes, inhibited revascularization and poor bone formation can cause loosening, bending, cracking, fracture of the device or premature loss of rigid fixation with the bone.¿ formal medical opinion was sought from an experienced independent medical expert as below; ¿the treatment method should have been considered against the background of the life expectancy of the patient.Maybe a joint replacement would have been an alternative.The bone cannot stabilize because it is metastatically altered.As mentioned by the hcp the breakage is indeed a typical fatigue problem if a fracture does not heal.With the metastasis the situation will keep unstable as the fracture can never heal.Therefore, the treatment has to be regarded as palliative.In the case that one uses a nail for such an indication he should be aware, that if the life expectancy is longer than six months something like that can always happen as the nail is for temporary stabilization and not foreseen to take the load for a longer period.Depending on the prognosis (expected lifetime) of the patient a joint replacement with a dual head prosthesis should be considered for the revision here-otherwise the same problem may occur in six months again.¿ based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a user related issue.As per medical opinion ¿with the metastasis the situation will keep unstable as the fracture can never heal.Therefore, the treatment has to be regarded as palliative.In the case that one uses a nail for such an indication he should be aware, that if the life expectancy is longer than six months something like that can always happen as the nail is for temporary stabilization and not foreseen to take the load for a longer period.¿ so the nail implantation was chosen despite the contradiction (condition presenting an increased risk of failure) ¿bone stock compromised by disease, infection or prior implantation that cannot provide adequate support and/or fixation of the devices.Other medical or surgical conditions which would preclude the potential benefit of surgery.¿ depending on the prognosis (expected lifetime) of the patient a joint replacement with a dual head prosthesis should be considered for the revision here-otherwise the same problem may occur in six months again.If device is returned or any further information is provided, the investigation report will be reassessed.
|