|
(b)(4).D10: concomitant medical products: desc: ann ph nail rt 9x160mm; item: 47-2496-160-09; lot: 3223706.G2: report source: spain.The device will not be returned for analysis; however, an investigation of the reported event is in progress.Once the investigation is completed, a supplemental medwatch 3500a will be submitted.
|
|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional information.The following sections were updated: b4, b5, b7, d4, g3, g6, h1, h2, h3, h4, h6, h10, h11.No product was returned or pictures provided; a product evaluation could not be performed.A review of the device manufacturing records confirmed no abnormalities or deviations.The surgical technique explains that the locking of the corelock is done using the corelock driver with torque limiting handle."turn slowly clockwise to tightenand engage the corelock mechanism until a click is felt from the torque limiting handle.Review of the complaint histories identified additional similar complaints for the reported items and no additional similar complaints for the reported part and lot combinations.Complaints are monitored in order to identify potential adverse trends.Medical records were provided and reviewed by a health care professional.The patient underwent intramedullary nailing of the right proximal humerus on (b)(6)2026.Fixation was reported as satisfactory under intraoperative fluoroscopy; however, the clinical record indicated proximal screw protrusion on immediate postoperative radiographs.On (b)(6)2026, the patient reported worsening pain and a sensation that something was displaced; no surgical wound or extremity concerns were identified, and no concerns were noted on the radiographs reviewed at that visit.Rehabilitation notes indicated that mild pain had improved with analgesics and home exercises.On (b)(6), 2026, the patient reported worsening symptoms after an initial period of improvement.Tenderness over the anteromedial screw head and pain-limited range of motion were documented, and radiographs showed proximal screw loosening.Proximal screw removal was scheduled for (b)(6) 2026
a definitive root cause could not be determined.However, based on the investigation it could be assumed that possible contributing factors to the migration of the screw might be multifactorial related to either patient condition, behavior or implantation procedure.If and to what extent any of these aspects may have influenced the migration of the screw remains unknown.In conclusion, as the cause may be multifactorial an exact root cause could not be identified for the migration of the screw.An additional deeper investigation was performed which identified the design limitation of the corelock mechanism as a potential contributing factor.However, as further biomechanical testing was carried out and the performance is in an acceptable range in comparison with legally marketed similar devices, no design changes were conducted.If any further information is found which would change or alter any conclusions or information, a supplemental report will be filed accordingly.Zimmer biomet will continue to monitor for trends.
|