|
The reported event could be confirmed based on details provided, only.Images available revealed a broken nail.Due to missing device a physical evaluation was impossible.In the case presented, a 77-year-old female patient at the time of the reported event, was initially treated on (b)(6) 2024 with the trochanteric nail set shown above, ti gamma3 ø11x180mm x 130, which was noticed to be broken during postoperative imaging 8 weeks.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.No dated image was made available for time point 8 weeks post operation but one dated image (b)(6) 2025 which confirms the course of broken nail at proximal bore hole.However, the provided details and x-ray images available for the current case were forwarded to a medical expert for review and statement ¿ his comments [excerpts]: this is a subtrochanteric fracture.From a medical and biomechanical perspective this fracture should not have been treated with a short nail since the one distal screw does not provide the stability needed.The implant and the fracture will move and thus the implant will break.The location of the fracture and the technical aspects of the surgical procedure contributed to the event.Furthermore, patient activity levels post-op may also have contributed to an inadequate load distribution, and therefore the breakage of the implant.Whether or not a pre-damage of the nail occurred during the procedure was unable to be verified due to missing item.Since a physical evaluation was impossible, further technical statement could not be made and an exact root cause could not be given.Adverse effects are clearly listed in the ifu and as pointed out, revision and additional surgery may be a consequence of these complications.With the information available no deficiency of the nail in question could be verified.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.
|