|
Please note the correction to b1.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: the device shows misdrilling marks at the lateral entrance of the proximal through-hole around the anterior web and the center.Severe deformation (plastic deformation) was also observed on the lateral side of the proximal segment near the hole entrance for the lag screw, which indicates the shifting of the drill towards the anterior side of the nail edge resulting in chipping of metal.Due to this misdrilling, an incipient crack initiated and progressed towards the medial.Gradually, alongside the anterior web, the posterior web also started getting fatigued and broke ultimately.The fracture pattern resembles a fatigue fracture evident shiny surface on the anterior web and partial lines of rest on the initial part of the anterior web.Further a dimensional inspection reveal the nail to be within specifications.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.A few x-rays were provided which were presented to our health care professional for evaluation, and question about the most likely reason for the breakage was asked, to which medical expert replied: ¿the potential root cause for the failure is that the fracture has not healed entirely.With the new device in such a difficult location (subtrochanteric fractures tend to heal not so well) and the reduced healing capacity (due to the refracture at the same location the healing period is prolonged) the bone did not show sufficient healing again and it ended up in this breakage.I would say that patient related factors (refracture, fracture pattern (subtrochanteric)) and surgical technique (missing additional surgical measurements (like bone graft or bone marrow insertion) or an additional lateral plate to reduce the forces would have been an option) related factors led to the failure.I would not identify device related factors here.¿ [original statement(s)] based on the above investigation, the root cause was attributed to a combination of patient and user-related factors.If any further information is provided, the complaint report will be updated.
|