|
The reported event could be confirmed since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged failure.The received nail was broken at the level of the last proximal round hole.The breakage surface initially appears relatively smooth, transitioning into a rough, granular region toward the end.No visible plastic deformation is present on either end of the nail, indicating that the failure occurred in a brittle manner.Additionally, the presence of lines of rest suggests that the breakage initiated as a fatigue-driven process, eventually culminating in a sudden breakage in a brittle manner.This is further supported by the shiny region observed on the medial side of the nail, characteristic of rapid final failure.With an available radiograph, a formal medical opinion was sought: in the time frame, there is no callus formation.This is a non-union.A lack of stability, continuous movement, and possibly even the additional pressure force on the nail due to the blocking screw led to the failure.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.No product related issue could be detected during the performed investigation of the returned device.The implant ultimately failed to withstand the applied force, resulting in material overload and fatigue failure.Based on the limited information available, the root cause of the reported event cannot be defined as this is often muti-factorial: the location of the fracture and the technical aspects of the surgical procedure could have contributed to the event.Furthermore, patient condition and activity levels post-op may also have contributed to an inadequate load distribution, and therefore the breakage of the implant.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|