|
Correction - please refer to d9 - product not returned.The reported event of adverse impact to patients - postoperatively could be confirmed since there was a reported revision due to the breakage of the counterpart nail.General aspects: the counterpart nail used is a temporary implant which inevitably will be subject of a fatigue fracture if the biomechanical stresses on the implant are too high or not considerably reduced during the period of implantation.During this period there is a race between bony consolidation / fracture healing and implant breakage as noted in the labelling of the product.Usually, a breakage is contributed to one or more deficits, e.G.Insufficient bone healing, product damage.Generally, the risk of breakage will increase with the increase of load cycles and load level.Nail breakage in general has been experienced but does not present an unanticipated event.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.In the case presented an 80-year-old female patient was initially treated with above shown implant and a counterpart gamma4 - intermediate nail, right d11x240mm x 125deg on (b)(6) 2025, which was noticed to be broken on (b)(6) 2026 and also with reported other relevant history of: osteoporosis, si joint arthritis, hyperlipidemia, restless legs syndrome, depression, anxiety.According to event details given within product inquiry.Patient underwent 5 hour revision surgery.Which could be a hint to insufficient bone healing after an implantation period of appr.9 months.Further details e.G.Medical records, x-rays etc.Were repeatedly requested but to no avail.One requirement for successful nail treatment is a timely bone healing to relieve the nail over the progressing time of implantation.Potential adverse effects are clearly pointed out in the labelling.In most instances implant breakage is rather clinical than device related.Adverse effects and events are clearly pointed out in the corresponding labelling.However, since the lag screw was not made available neither a physical evaluation was possible nor a further technical statement could be made for the lag screw in question.With given details no discrepancy for the lag screw in question could be verified.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required currently.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 becomes available in future that suggests otherwise we reserve the right to reopen the case.
|