|
The received x-rays were reviewed and it can be confirmed that the nail is broken.A device inspection was not possible since the affected device was not returned, therefore no further evaluation is possible.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.The complaint was forwarded to medical affairs for review with following result: ¿there is very limited information available, just 2 post op x-rays and 2 x-rays after the revision procedure.What we do know: first surgery in (b)(6) 2023, revision in (b)(6) 2024 and there was a non-union of the initially treated fracture.We have more than one statement in the labeling that the nails do not replicate normal bones.It is also well known that if the fracture does not heal, eventually the implant will break.The implant is not created to carry loads indefinitely.Most probably there was not sufficient stability provided by the three proximal screws, which resulted in continuous movement, a non-union, and eventually breakage in the screw-nail interface.Based on investigation and provided information, the root cause of the reported event is multi-factorial: the location of the fracture, the choice of the implant given that location and the technical aspects of the surgical procedure.Furthermore, patient activity levels post-op may have contributed to an inadequate load distribution, and therefore the breakage of the implant.¿ no product related issue could be detected.The nail was not returned for evaluation and the provided information is limited.Therefore, it is not possible to determine the exact root cause of this event, as stated in the medical evaluation there are multiple factors that could have played a role.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.H3 other text : hospital retained.
|