| Model Number |
3425-0260S |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
08/20/2020
|
|
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
|
|
As reported: "on (b)(6) 2020, the patient underwent the operation for fracture of the proximal femur.On (b)(6) 2020, the patient underwent revision surgery due to breakage of the implant.It is uncertain when the implant broke." the additional information was received: "trochanteric fracture reverse type (reverse oblique fracture under lug screw)nail was used in the operation of the second revision, and the progress is good.A gap remained in the fractured part in a difficult reduction case it is believed that the implant is likely to have broken [.]." the additional information on patient's history was received: "the patient had history of left tha, lumbar compression fracture (conservative therapy).".
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported: "on (b)(6) 2020, the patient underwent the operation for fracture of the proximal femur.On (b)(6) 2020, the patient underwent revision surgery due to breakage of the implant.It is uncertain when the implant broke." the additional information was received: "trochanteric fracture reverse type (reverse oblique fracture under lug screw)nail was used in the operation of the second revision, and the progress is good.A gap remained in the fractured part in a difficult reduction caseit is believed that the implant is likely to have broken [.]." the additional information on patient's history was received: "the patient had history of left tha, lumbar compression fracture (conservative therapy).".
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported event could be confirmed, since the product was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged failure mode.The device inspection revealed the following: visual inspection confirms the breakage of nail.The drill mark at posterior-lateral web (entry point) indicates the mis-drilling.Also, the diagonally opposite drill marks on hole surface indicate the misalignment of drill with hole axis.The rest lines on broken surface indicate the fatigue fracture of nail.The fracture was initiated from posterior-lateral web and passed until posterior-medial web.The rough fracture surface at anterior-medial web indicates final fracture of nail.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 operative technique instructs user that: ¿in the event the nail is damaged during lag screw reaming, the fatigue strength of the implant may be reduced, which may cause nail to fracture.¿ based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a user related issue.The failure was caused by the compromised fatigue strength of device due to mis-drilling.If any further information is provided, the complaint report will be updated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|