|
Additional information: h6 (component code, type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions).Results of investigation: the device was not returned for evaluation.However, the photographs were reviewed, and revealed that the device was fractured into two separate pieces.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, based on the information provided, the patient¿s significant surgical history, previous fractures and comorbidities could not be ruled out as contributing factors to the reported event.The stem fracture appears to have occurred near the previous periprosthetic fracture site and appear to be near where the proximal and distal plates abut.The instructions for use documents does address contraindications along with possible adverse events.The patient impact beyond the reported stem fracture with obvious angle variance, revision, and an anticipated post-operative course could not be determined.No further medical assessment can be rendered at this time.Device batch number was not provided, thus, an evaluation of the manufacturing records could not be performed.A review of complaint history for the previous 12 months did not reveal similar events for the listed device.A review of the instructions for use documents for total hip systems revealed in the adverse events that implant fracture is more likely to occur in patients who are young, physically active, and/or heavy, which may lead to implant failure and revision surgery.Moreover, the contraindications section revealed that in revision surgery, inadequate proximal implant support is contraindicated.There is an increased risk of implant failure in revision cases where proximal support is not achieved and poor bone quality exists.The lower the implant fixation point in the femur (distance from the head center) the greater the risk of implant fracture and/or re-revision.Also, the warnings and precautions section revealed that improper selection, placement, positioning, and fixation of the implant components may result in unusual stress conditions and subsequent early failure/fracture of the components.Besides, cutting, bending, or scratching the surface of components can significantly reduce the strength, fatigue resistance, and/or wear characteristics of the implant system.These may induce internal stresses that are not obvious to the eye and may lead to fracture of the component.Additionally, muscle looseness, malpositioning of components and/or failure to use the optimum-sized component may result in fracture of components.A review of the risk management file 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 this product and event.According to the material specification, the quality and manufacture of the product material shall be controlled.At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Factors that could contribute to the reported event include patient anatomy, abnormal loading of limb, excessive forces and/or traumatic injury.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should the device or 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.
|