|
The reported event could be confirmed since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged event.The returned nail exhibits breakage on the proximal side, located just below the oblong hole.Evidence of missdrilling is observed at both the oblong hole and the distal static hole, confirmed by shiny surfaces resulting from drill contact with the internal walls of the nail, which led to localized wall deformation.Microscopic examination indicates a mixed mode of breakage, characterized by fatigue crack initiation followed by subsequent brittle failure.Features consistent with this failure mechanism include visible fatigue lines of rest and flat, shiny fracture surfaces.These observations indicate progressive crack propagation under cyclic loading conditions, ultimately resulting in instantaneous fracture on the opposing side.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.Based on the above investigation breakage could be termed fatigue in nature and no product related issue could be detected during the performed investigation of the returned device.Regarding the root cause of the implant failure no conclusive statement can be provided, because key clinical information (e.G.X-rays in different planes, clinical status, patient activity, assessment of the treating physician or operation reports) is missing.The root causes in such cases are often complex and multifactorial and cannot be determined scientifically without this decisive evidence.Due to these limitations, we are unable in such cases to provide statements about the patient, the procedure and/or the device in relation to cause of the failure.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|