|
It was reported, after an intramedulary nail revision performed on (b)(6) 2019 due to nonunion of a left femoral shaft fracture, the patient required an additional revision surgery on (b)(6) 2020 to replace the distal interlocking screw due to the backing out of the trigen low profile screw 5.0mm x 55mm.A new 60mm interlocking screw was implanted in exchange.
|
|
Internal reference number: (b)(4).H10: this complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication identified through the review of clinical evidence from post market clinical data collection activities that includes reference to the use of a smith+nephew product.The reported issue(s) relate to known inherent procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to confirm a relationship between the reported event and the device or identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
|
Given the nature of the alleged incident, the device, could not be returned for evaluation; therefore, a device analysis could not be performed.The clinical/medical investigation concluded that, there is a likely route cause.The patients history of myxofibrosarcoma, prior sarcoma resection with periosteal stripping+ xrt, prior multiple medical device implantation and revision surgeries are all likely clinical root causes of the reported loosening and implant fracture.The patient impact is determined to be nonunion, loosening of the implants, broken distal interlock screws and 3 revision surgeries.It¿s noted 8-months post 3rd revision the patient was doing well with no new pain.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 intramedullary nail system revealed in possible adverse effects that cracking or fracture of the implant may occur.Preoperative planning section states that proper type and size of implant must be selected to ensure effective treatment of patients considering factors such as patient¿s size, strength, skeletal characteristics, skeletal health, and general health.Overweight or musculoskeletal deficient or unhealthy patients may create greater loads on implants that may lead to breakage or other failure of the implants.Additionally, postoperative care section warns that early weight bearing substantially increases implant loading and increases the risk of breaking the device.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.At this time, we have no evidence to conclude that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.Should 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.
|