|
Correction - please refer to d1, d4 catalog #, d4 lot #, d9 - the device was returned for evaluation, g1 reporting contact, h6 (method & results) codes.The reported event could be confirmed since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged failure.The return nail underwent a visual inspection, during which it was found to be broken into two fragments at the level of the lag screw hole.The microscopic inspection reveals lines of rest, indicating that the fracture was initiated in a fatigue manner.The material damage from miss-drilling may have weakened the device, contributing to the breakage, which is evident from the shiny marks on the lateral side.The other end suggests a sudden fracture in a brittle manner, which resulted from the fatigue fracture.Additionally, heavy deformation marks are visible at the load-bearing section, indicating that the nail was subjected to severe loads.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 the investigation, we can conclude that the nail breakage occurred due to fatigue.Miss-drilling could potentially contribute to nail breakage as it affects the load-bearing capacity of the nail, making it more prone to failure.Additionally, while it is known that the patient was active with nonunion, without further radiographs or medical records, it is not feasible to determine the exact root cause of the issue failure.If any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|