|
Correction: please refer to section h6 (method code).The reported event could not be confirmed since the device was not returned for evaluation and no other evidences were provided.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the lot number was not communicated.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available in order to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|
|
Corrections: please refer to sections d9 the device was returned and h6 (method and results codes).The reported event could be confirmed since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged event.The returned device underwent a detailed visual examination, which revealed that it had fractured into two distinct fragments across the webs of the lag screw.Prominent misdrilling marks were observed on the implant surface, beginning anteriorly and extending toward the lateral aspect of the nail.Such misdrilling introduces a notching effect that significantly contributes to crack initiation and adversely affects the load-bearing capacity of the device.Slight deformation was also noted on both the proximal and distal fragments, consistent with repetitive loading.Microscopic evaluation of the fracture surface showed characteristic features of fatigue failure, including visible arrest lines indicative of progressive crack propagation over time.Additionally, one region of the fracture displayed a shiny appearance consistent with a brittle fracture, suggesting the final catastrophic failure point.Overall, the fracture pattern suggests a multifactorial failure mechanism involving both fatigue and brittle breakage characteristics.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, the breakage of nail contributes to multipfactorial fatigue and is brittle in nature.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.
|