|
It was reported that the original surgery was performed in october, on (b)(6) 2025.It was a bilateral surgery and two nails were implanted.One was working and the other wasn't, so in november, on (b)(6) 2025, surgery was performed to remove the malfunctioning nail and implant another.This event occurred in spain.
|
|
It was reported that the original surgery was performed on (b)(6) 2025.It was a bilateral surgery and two nails were implanted.One was working and the other wasn't, so in november, on (b)(6) 2025, surgery was performed to remove the malfunctioning nail and implant another.This event occurred in spain.
|
|
The investigation revealed that the complaint was able to be confirmed, but the root cause is unknown.A precice antegrade femur pirformis straight nail, 10.7mm x 245mm (p10.7-80b245, lot # gb1623jac), was returned to globus for investigation.The complaint alleged that the nail failed to distract post operatively.Upon receipt of the device, it was visually inspected where no visible damaged was noted.It was measured to be longer than any minimum length measurement from the lot, showing the nail did distract.X-rays were taken to view the internal components of the nail, but there were no abnormalities noted upon review.The nail then underwent product release testing where it was able to fully distract and retract.The nail was then placed in a distraction force fixture where the nail was unable to meet the minimum distraction force of 180lbs.It was only able to distract with 170lbs of force.The nail was then fully retracted and compressed with the combination of a dowel pin through the distal screw hole and rubber bands.The nail was x-rayed in this compressed state to check the clearance of the internal components, but there was no interference that would cause the nail to be unable to distract while under load.The nail was lastly cut open to view the internal components, but no damaged was noted on any of the components.In conclusion, the complaint for failure to distract can be confirmed as the nail was unable to distract while under load.After reviewing internal x-rays and inspecting the internal subcomponents post nail opening, the cause for this failure is unknown as there is no obvious evidence that suggests the nail would be unable to function as intended.A review of the dhr documents indicates the device was manufactured by the specified requirement at the time and met all the required inspections before shipment.The associated risk document was reviewed, and the failure mode, effects, and harms potentially related to the event have been identified and mitigated.Furthermore, the complaint rate is within the estimated rate in the risk documentation associated with this product.Based on this risk assessment, no new or additional risk evaluation is necessary.
|