|
Correction: please refer to section h6 (clinical signs code).The reported event could be confirmed during the investigation.The device inspection revealed the following: the identification of the returned nail was confirmed based on the catalog # and the lot # marked.The implant is broken in two parts, at the level of the lag screw hole.Both parts were returned.The evaluation revealed that the nail broke due to fatigue after 11 weeks of implantation.This can be stated based on the lines of rest clearly visible on the anterior side of the nail, which are a classic indication of a fatigue fracture.According to the observations made, the fatigue fracture had its origination in the lateral side of the anterior portion of the lag screw hole.Material damage, which was caused by misaligned drilling, may have weakened the device and contributed to the breakage.This statement is confirmed by the significant signs of wear (shiny area) on the lateral side of the hole.The removed material created a sharp-edged chamfer.The posterior side of the lag screw hole shows evidence of a sudden "catastrophic" brittle fracture, resulting from the fatigue fracture aforementioned.Material deformation (bearing points) be observed on the edge of the proximal hole, below the lag screw.This indicates that the nail was subjected to severe loads, leading to displacement of the lag screw, associated with the breakage of the nail.This statement is confirmed by the wear marks observed on the returned lag screw.The exact root cause of the nail's failure could not be determined.More information would have been necessary for a complete investigation.It has been informed that "the patient has a history of tumors", but in the absence of x-rays, it was not possible to determine whether tumours may have contributed to the fracture and to what extent.The misdrilling most probably contributed to the fracture, by facilitating and/or accelerating its development.However, it is unlikely to have been the main cause.Any manufacturing related issue could be ruled out.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.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|