|
The reported event could be confirmed since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged event.The returned nail was visually examined and was found to be fractured at the distal end near the static hole.Evidence of drilling-related marks was observed at the lag screw hole and oblong hole locations.Microscopic examination of the fracture surface revealed a predominantly flat and shiny appearance, which is indicative of a mixed fracture mode involving fatigue crack progression followed by instantaneous failure under excessive loading.Localized deformation was observed in the fracture region, suggesting that stress concentration at the breakage site may have contributed to crack initiation.The fracture characteristics are consistent with crack propagation over time under repetitive cyclic loading, culminating in final sudden 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.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.
|