|
Correction: please refer to g1 reporting contact, h6 health impact code.The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned and shows a breakage at the level of the lag screw hole.Traces of miss-drilling can be seen on the inside surface of the screw hole (shiny surface all through the length of the hole progressing through the bore towards medial).The drill marks were generated by a deviated lag screw step drill which most likely had created the starting point of the fracture (notching effect) somewhere at the lateral edge.Multiple scratches can also be noticed going in several directions in the inner surface of the lag screw hole.These last marks can be attributed to the attempts of the hcp to remove the nail from the patient's body, and not in relation of the nail breaking.An analysis of the surface breakage of the bridges shows shiny surfaces, which are a clear indicator of fatigue fractures.Indeed, the nail most probably broke at the level of one of the bridges first, resulting in the two parts of the nail (proximal and distal) rubbing against each other, and creating the shiny surface that can be seen in the picture.Due to heavy marks, the true origin point of the fracture could not be traced.Based on the mentioned facts above, it can be stated that the nail was at least partially broken before the extraction surgery, due to fatigue.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 more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|