|
Please note corrections to section h6 (health impact code).The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned and matches the alleged failure.For available radiographs and operative notes, a formal medical opinion was sought: from the available information, the fracture reduction looks reasonable but the fracture will keep moving due to the lack of compression and stability, which will cause delayed/ non- union and implant failure in time.The received nail is completely broken in the webs of the proximal lag screw hole, in the proximal section slight misdrilling marks are also visible.We can see the load-bearing points on the proximal part of the broken nail which indicates overloading.Bearing points of the lag screw at the medial edge of the proximal hole showed significant deformation, indicating the high compressive load.Signs of overloading were also evident at the distal oblong hole.The breakage pattern resembles a fatigue breakage, having equal portions of fatigue zone and instantaneous zone indicating that the breakage was initiated in a fatigued manner but quickly broke instantaneously under high compressive loading.We also observed deformation at the distal hole which was caused by to misalignment of a drill during the process.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.Based on investigation, the root cause of the reported event is muti-factorial.The location of the fracture, the choice of the implant given that location, and the patient activity levels post-op may have contributed to an inadequate load distribution, and therefore the breakage of the implant.If any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|