|
The investigation revealed that the complaint states that the patient broke their femur while the nail was in-situ.The nail was removed as a part of a normal removal procedure, but the nail broke at the male-female junction into two pieces, with one piece able to be removed while the other was left in the patient.The remaining piece caused metallosis so the femoral canal had to be reamed extensively.The unit is an antegrade femur, 12.5mm x 335mm precice 2 nail (lot # 1012082aaa).The nail was sent back to globus for investigation.The dhr was reviewed with no discrepancies occurring during the manufacturing of the lot.It was measured upon receipt.Visual inspection of the nail confirmed a broken housing tube (pp1988-335, lot # 201124-08) at the male-female junction.No part discoloration was found during the inspection.Pictures attached with the complaint showed that the anti-rotation lug (pp2162-002.Lot # 210118-11) was broken into two pieces.The piece that was removed was not returned for evaluation.The inspection records for the housing tube and anti-rotation lug lots were reviewed with the housing tube lot having a non-conformance for one unit not being anodized.This unit was returned to the vendor, and the rest of the lot was accepted.The unit not being anodized would not have an effect on the nail's mechanical strength.After cleaning/disinfection, x-rays were taken and showed no damage to any of the internal components of the nail.The entire anti-rotation lug was missing, and the crack in the housing tube can be seen on the x-ray.The unit was placed in the stroke test fixture and was able to fully distract and retract.With no anti-rotation lug, the nail would not be able to produce any distraction force, so that testing was not performed.Anti-rotation lug breakages of this pattern suggests that the patient was weight bearing when they fractured their femur while the nail was in-situ.The distraction rod rotating against a broken housing tube and broken anti-rotation lug is the likely cause of wear debris that caused the reported metallosis.A review of the dhr documents indicates the device was manufactured by the specified requirement at the time and met all of the required inspections before shipment.The rate is within the predicted rate, and no new harm was determined.Complaint rate and risk evaluation reveals that the product is within the anticipated risk; therefore, the overall risk of the system has been maintained and will continue to be monitored.
|