Correction: please refer to b2, h6 mdr codes (device, method, results, conclusion & health impact code) the reported event could be confirmed with the x-rays provided.The device inspection was not possible as the product was not returned for investigation.The device history record could not be reviewed because the affected device was not returned, and the lot number was not communicated.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.Since x-rays were provided, a formal medical opinion was sought from an experienced medical expert as below: ¿[¿] there are some points which could have contributed to the failure.The plate is not foreseen to overtake the load of the mcp joint for a long time.As the whole body weight is on the joint and thus the plate, this is not possible.Non-union is more likely in the case of a revision.Very accurate preparation of the joint to allow arthrodesis with bone substitution and careful removal of the whole cartilage is necessary and still non-union is common.Whether this has been done in the provided case cannot only be assessed via x-ray.However, in this case the plate alone did not provide enough stability and it ended up in the breakage.¿ based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a user related issue.The failure was caused due to the non-union of the mcp joint that was not achieved in time and the plate broke.With the very high load in the joint this is not uncommon.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|