| Model Number |
1845-1036S |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
12/02/2020
|
|
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 a male patient underwent orif procedure for femoral subtrochanteric fracture (left side).At that time t2 recon 10mm and 360mm was used as the patient was young and the medullary cavity was narrow.Three months after the operation on a medical examination, broke of the nail was confirmed on the distal side of the lag screw hole.On (b)(6) 2020, revision of the nail with t2 alpha-f was performed without problem.Doctor's opinion: the reduction was restored in the first operation, and reaming was performed until 10 mm nails were inserted, and there was no failure with the operation.The doctor was convinced that the nail broke because it was before the bone fusion.Revision completed without any problems.".
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported: "on (b)(6) 2020 a male patient underwent orif procedure for femoral subtrochanteric fracture (left side).At that time t2 recon 10mm and 360mm was used as the patient was young and the medullary cavity was narrow.Three months after the operation on a medical examination, broke of the nail was confirmed on the distal side of the lag screw hole.On (b)(6) 2020, revision of the nail with t2 alpha-f was performed without problem.Doctor's opinion: the reduction was restored in the first operation, and reaming was performed until 10 mm nails were inserted, and there was no failure with the operation.The doctor was convinced that the nail broke because it was before the bone fusion.Revision completed without any problems.".
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported event was confirmed by returned broken implant.The review of manufacturing documents revealed no deviation in the manufacturing process.Required material properties had been confirmed prior to manufacturing.As no item was returned no physical examination could be carried out.No nc/capa had been filed for the item with that failure mode in question.Potential implant breakage had been considered in the risk management file with appropriate values not having been exceeded by this case.The labelling already informs about that a temporary implant requires sufficient bone consolidation in order to relieve the nail during the implantation period.The labelling also points out potential reasons for insufficient bone healing ¿ e.G.But not limited to osteoporosis and / or diabetes and points out that an intra-operatively damaged implant is at risk for breakage.In the case presented and referring to the breakage evidences of the returned nail it had broken in fatigue manner after an implantation period of approx.4 months.The fatigue fracture had its origin in the anterior bridge at lateral where intra-operative damage had weakened the material.Since no medical records were available it could not be determined if the progress of bone union had contributed to the event.Also, it could not be determined if the patient¿s behaviour had been in accordance to the surgeon¿s instructions.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related matters were found during the investigation.In case further essential information becomes available we reserve the right to reopen the investigation with root cause assessment.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|