|
The reported event could be confirmed, based on x-rays provided, only, a broken nail could be verified.A physical device inspection was not possible since the affected device was not returned and thus, evaluation limited to details available.Based on x-ray images provided the reported nail breakage could be verified.The nail broke proximally above the oblong hole at the distal end.According to event details given within product inquiry the item was revised by another alpha retrograde nail (catalogue number 2339-1438s) on (b)(6) 2024 after primary surgery took place on (b)(6) 2022, which is a clear hint that the fracture was not healed at all after an implantation duration of approximately 19 months.Furthermore, a non-union, also confirmed by event description ¿revision reason: non union, broken hw¿ was present.Finally, it is unknown which post-operative weight-bearing behavior instructions were given by the surgeon and if the patient was compliant to this.One requirement for successful nail treatment is a timely bone healing in order to relieve the implant(s) over the progressing time of implantation.Potential adverse effects are clearly pointed out in the labelling.Nevertheless, based on the information given an exact root cause of the reported event could not be determined and a thorough technical statement was impossible, but it could not be excluded that it is rather related to patient conditions (non-union) and thus, classified as patient-patient factors issue.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.In case substantive information will become available in future that suggests otherwise we reserve the right to reopen the case.
|