| Catalog Number |
30660090S |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
07/19/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported: "the gamma3 u-blade lag screw was implanted in the left femur in 2017.Because the patient had not visited the hospital after discharge, the follow-up medical examination was not performed.On (b)(6) 2023, the patient visited the outpatient department of the hospital, and cutout of the lag screw and broken of the u-blade were confirmed.The ct examination revealed that the part of the broken u-blade was left in the pelvis.The revision surgery was performed".
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Once the investigation has been completed any additional information will be reported in a supplemental report.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported: "the gamma3 u-blade lag screw was implanted in the left femur in 2017.Because the patient had not visited the hospital after discharge, the follow-up medical examination was not performed.On (b)(6) 2023, the patient visited the outpatient department of the hospital, and cutout of the lag screw and broken of the u-blade were confirmed.The ct examination revealed that the part of the broken u-blade was left in the pelvis.The revision surgery was performed".
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Please note the correction to d4 lot #.The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned and matched the alleged issue.The device inspection revealed the following: the received u-blade lag screw showed normal signs of usage, however, one of the legs of the u-blade was found to be broken.The fracture surface shows typical signs of fatigue failure evident by appearance of lines of rest originating from one of the corners.A functional inspection was performed with the broken u-blade.The u-blade could be inserted properly without any deviation or misalignment.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.Based on the above investigation and the fact that the implant was inside patient for about 6 years, it can be ascertained that the u-blade broke in a fatigue manner, most likely due to constant overloading over a long period of time.If any further information is provided, the complaint report will be updated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|