|
The reported event could be confirmed during the investigation.The device inspection revealed the following: the identification of the returned nail could be confirmed based on the catalog and the lot numbers marked.The nail broke at the lag screw hole in two parts.Only the proximal part has been returned for investigation.Evidence of fatigue could be seen on the surface of the breakage.This can be stated based on the lines of rest clearly visible on the posterior 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 posterior portion of the lag screw hole.Signs of a sudden "catastrophic" brittle fracture were observed on both sides of the device, and can be linked to high-intensity trauma.The observations made correspond to the information received, that the implant failure was noticed after the patient fell.It must be noted, nonetheless, that the fatigue fracture was the main cause of the implant's failure.The patient's fall accelerated the breakage of an already weakened nail.Material deformation (bearing points) can be observed on the edge of the lag screw hole.This indicates that the nail was subjected to severe loads, leading to displacement of the lag screw, associated with the breakage of the nail.Based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a patient related issues.The nail breakage occurred due to a combination of fatigue and the patient's fall.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.
|