|
The reported event could be confirmed since physical inspection matches the reported failure mode.In the case presented a 40-year-old male patient [at time of event] was initially treated on (b)(6) 2024, with above implant which was explanted appr.15.5 months later, on (b)(6) 2025, and nail breakage was verified.As per event details given.Revision surgery due to nail breaking and fracture not healing.Since neither preoperative x-ray images in different views m-l and a-p view nor medical records were made available it could not be determined whether reduction had been performed according to anatomical requirements and a medical statement regarding initial treatment could not be made.Furthermore, it could not be determined what range of weight bearing had been advised by the surgeon for the post-operative period.It could also not be determined if the patient had been compliant to the instructions.As per per form given a patient¿s post implant activity level of high was stated.Nail breakage in general has been experienced but does not present an unanticipated event in itself.Depending on load application, also, depending on the patient¿s post implant behavior and depending on suitable anatomical reduction, depending on the kind of bone breakage, depending on the course of bone healing and other factors e.G.Increased post-operative activities a nail breakage can rather be classified as anticipated; specifically if one or more contributing issues concurrence with each other.The affected nail is designed to withstand the normal loads during the implantation period, i.E., the implant must neither be exposed to peak loads nor to continuous stresses.Another prerequisite for a successful supply is undisturbed, normal bone healing.In case that such a situation does not occur, exceeding of the fatigue strength is to be expected and thus quite predictable complications.Finally, as pointed out in the if, the risk of post-operative complication e.G.Failure of an implant is higher if patients are obese.And based on data provided an increased bmi was also be verified.Axial overload had led to continuous stresses and a significant weakening of the nail in the area of the most distal hole at proximal part, followed by the fatigue fracture.Based on the above the nail breakage was not linked to a deficiency of the device but was rather patient related.Adverse effects are clearly listed in the ifu and as pointed out.Revision and additional surgery may be a consequence of these complications.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.In case substantive information will become available in future that suggests otherwise we reserve the right to reopen the case.
|