|
Correction, please refer to h6 (device, clinical, results, method & conclusion) codes.Device was not returned for evaluation, but the reported event could be confirmed with provided x-rays.A device inspection was not possible since the affected device is still implanted.Since data and x-rays were provided, the opinion of a medical expert was sought and stated as follows: the event of greater tuberosity migration is confirmed by the x-ray.This type of adverse event is inherent to the character of displaced proximal humeral fractures, bone fragments can lose their vascularity during the trauma, jeopardizing/slowing down fracture healing.Eventually if they do not heal timely, the pull of rotator cuff tendons will pull the fragment away from the implant.Please note that the suture fixation of the greater tuberosity to the stem may vary amongst surgeon depending on several factors (patient and/or surgeon related).There are no signs of humeral stem loosening and no issues on the glenoid side (there are no signs of any form of device related failure).Based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to patient-related factors.The suture fixation of the greater tuberosity to the stem may vary amongst surgeons depending on several factors.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.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the lot number was not communicated.If any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|