|
Given the nature of the alleged incident, the devices could not be returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that based on the x-ray findings from (b)(6)2019, the increased callus between proximal shaft and large butterfly fragment in the lateral soft tissue, we cannot rule out inadequate fracture reduction, nail selection, the high-impact trauma, non-compliance, and the language barrier as the likely causes of the reported non-union, clicking, popping, pain and the subsequent revision.Therefore, it could not be concluded that these adverse events were a mal-performance of the implant or an implant failure.Additionally, a user error versus procedural variance could not be ruled out as the likely cause of the intra-operative drill tip and proximal non-locking screw breakage in the patient's bone in the revision procedure.The material composition of the retained (manufacturer unknown) drill bit is unknown.However, drill bits are externally communicating devices that are not designed for implantation and long-term implantation data is not available.The reported stated that the drill bit was ¿buried in the bone,¿ therefore, micro-motion and migration is unlikely.However, we cannot determine the impact of the non-implantable foreign body.The fractured implantable competitor¿s synthes proximal non-locking screw was retained in the bone; therefore, micro-motion and migration is unlikely.Further impact to the patient beyond the reported non-union, pain, popping, clicking, bone stimulator, revision, retained drill bit, retained screw, and permanent partial disability rating: left femur and knee: (b)(4), could not be assessed because the patient¿s current status is unknown.For the femoral antegrade nail, device batch number was not provided, thus, an evaluation of the manufacturing records could not be performed.For the screws, a review of the production orders did not reveal a manufacturing abnormality that could have caused or contributed to the reported incident.For the femoral antegrade nail, a review of complaint history for the previous 24 months did not reveal similar events for the listed device.For the screws, a review of complaint history for the part numbers over the past 24 months and for the batch numbers based on historical data of the device did not reveal similar events for the listed devices.A review of the instructions for use documents for intramedullary nail system revealed that care prior to bony union stablish to immobilize and/or externally support skeletal structures that have been implanted with surgical metallic implants until skeletal union is observed.Early weight bearing substantially increases implant loading and increases the risk of loosening, bending or breaking the device.Early weight bearing should only be considered where there are stable fractures with good bone-to-bone contact.Patients who are obese and/or noncompliant, as well as patients who could be pre-disposed to delayed or non-union, should have auxiliary support.The implant may be exchanged for a larger, stronger nail subsequent to the management of soft tissue injuries.Patients and nursing care providers should be advertised of these risks.A review of the risk management files revealed this failure mode was previously identified.The anticipated risk level is still adequate.A historical review concluded that there are no prior actions related to these products and event.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the products failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should additional information be received, the complaint will be reopened.No further investigation is warranted for this complaint; however, we will continue to monitor for future complaints and investigate as necessary.We consider this investigation closed.
|