|
Please note the correction to d9/h3 as the device was not returned for evaluation.The reported event could be confirmed, as the device was not returned for evaluation but an image was shared which confirms the alleged failure.On provided x-ray copies, dated october 31, 2022, screw breakage was confirmed in a-p-view.The broken locking screw was positioned at the static mode of the oblong drill hole.A second screw in the static drill hole was not apparent.A device inspection was not possible since the affected device was not returned.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.In the case presented a 52-year-old male patient had been treated with above implant on an unknown date.On october 31, 2022 the screw was revised due to breakage.Four x-ray copies, dated october 31, 2022 in a-p- and m-l-views were provided.These were sent to a hcp for review.His comments in excerpts: "provided x-rays show a self-dynamization, broken screw, at distal.At proximal the x-rays only allow an assumption that the fracture is in progressing union now.A ct-scan would probably give a safer view.A) the positioning of the lag screw is at least remarkable.In both planes it is not in centered position as advised in the labeling and it seems that it has not been achieved by having an optimized tip apex distance -tad.B) the distal locking is either static locking - in that case a second locking screw would have been mandatory or dynamic locking.In that case it would have been recommendable to choose the dynamic locking option".If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.H3 other text : device disposition unknown.
|