|
Corrections: please refer to section h6 (results codes).The reported event could be confirmed since the device was not returned for evaluation, but available radiograph confirms the alleged event.With the available radiograph, a formal medical opinion was sought: we see a basicervical fnf here.The positioning of the nail and the lag screw is not optimal, but good.However, these fractures have an increased risk of failure due to the mismatch between the diameter of the cortical bone of the proximal and distal fragments, leading to an inherent instability.This specific fracture pattern provides the lag screw with a pretty high force in the medial direction, which is visible here.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.The operative technique states that: ¿the set screw must be used.Insufficient set screw placement could lead to loss of lag screw fixation and postoperative complications.¿ indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the lot number was not communicated.Based on the available information, the exact root cause could not be determined, but multiple probable causes can be identified, such as the set screw was not tightened appropriately, or the traction forces generated by mobilization acting on the lag screw exceeded the fixation provided by the set screw.Therefore, a mixture of patient-related factors (fracture pattern) and potentially a user-related issue could have been the reason for the failure.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|