|
The reported event could be confirmed, since the returned nail is broken as described in the event description.The device inspection revealed the following: the received nail is completely broken in the webs of the proximal lag screw thru hole.The breakage surfaces of both webs at distal part presents a smooth topography and densely staggered areas.Evident bearing points could be verified at distal medial and with obviously bulged out material.Bearing points are typical results of the interaction of the single products under load.Areas with signs of friction / seizing (bearing points of lag screw) are visible at the distal medial edge.The appearance identified a high axial load application to the implants.One requirement for successful nail treatment is a timely bone healing in order to relieve the nail over the progressing time of implantation.Potential adverse effects are clearly pointed out in the labelling.The patient was primary treated in (b)(6) 2024 with long nail kit r1.5, ti, right gamma3 ø11x380mm x 125 and according to further details received had an accident (fall) on 13.02.2025 after an implantation period of approx.15.5 weeks.Therefore, revision operation took place on 15.02.2025, which could be seen as a hint that no sufficient bone healing was in place.Furthermore, as per ifu ¿the surgeon must warn the patient that the device cannot and does not replicate a normal healthy bone, that the device can break or become damaged as a result of strenuous activity, trauma, mal-union or non-union and that the device has a finite expected service life and may need to be removed at some time in the future.Explain the need to report unusual changes in the implantation area as well as falls or accidents even if the device or the site of operation did not appear to be harmed at the time.¿ the affected nail is designed to withstand the normal loads during the implantation period, i.E., the implant must neither be exposed to peak loads nor to continuous stresses.Another prerequisite for a successful supply is undisturbed, normal bone healing.In case that such a situation does not occur, exceeding of the fatigue strength is to be expected and thus quite predictable complications.Based on details available it could not be excluded that the reported event is utmost likely related to the reported accident (fall) of the patient combined by signs of fatigue and contributed by high axial load application over the implant duration.Any medical statement regarding healing status of the bone was impossible due to missing medical records (a-p and m-l view).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.
|