|
See h5, h6, and h11.This complaint was initiated by a report of a dynanail (10x22mm) that was originally implanted on (b)(6) 2025 and due to the device breaking underwent a revision removal surgery in which the nail was removed.The reporter stated that the case and first post-op looked great, but then the patient was having pain and the x-ray done by the clinic revealed that the nail was broke.The reporter sent x-ray images and returned the nail for investigation and evaluation which confirmed the failure mode of device breakage/crack.The dynanail risk analysis matrix document was reviewed.Nail body breaks / bends has a worst-case detection level 2, patient severity level 3, device severity level 3, and occurrence level 1.Multiple cause for the nail breaking exist including material failure, excessive forces placed on the nail, and non-union of the bone.These can occur from pre-fusion weight bearing, long term non-union, or manufacturing/material defects.It is unknown if the surgical technique was adhered to with the information provided, but there were no reported deviations.A definitive probable root cause remains unknown.Complaint history was reviewed from may 29, 2024 to may 29, 2025, resulting in 2 additional complaints of a dynanail ttc breaking.Note that one of the complaints had non-union along with additional hardware likely impacting union and stress dynamics.Based on a sales volume of 1590 from may 29, 2024 to may 29, 2025, the occurrence level of remote is appropriate.The dynanail risk analysis matrix was generated using the legacy medshape risk management sop.Occurrence level comparison is in alignment with that procedure.The hazard is an anticipated risk within the risk analysis matrix and the current occurrences are within the anticipated threshold.Thus, this is not an indication of a systematic issue necessitating a capa investigation.It will continue to be monitored.Therefore, no further action is needed.
|