|
The involved plate was implanted during a third surgery (revision), after two other implants (of a different company) have failed.The plate was implanted in a patient with partial resected humeral bone (an allograft was implanted together with the plate).Examination of the production records of the involved device indicated it was manufactured according to specification.The involved plate was returned to the company, and its dimensional examination did not reveal any deviation from specification.
|
|
The involved product (proximal humerus plate) was implanted on (b)(6) 2015 during a third surgery (revision).Based on information provided to the company, the previous, removed, implants (of other companies) were stainless steel plate; and titanium nail and cage (mesh).The carbofix plate was implanted with allograft, after partial resection of the effected humeral bone.About 12 weeks after post-op., the patient complained of pain and discharge at the surgery site.In x-rays the plate was seen broken (at the area between the plate head and shaft).The patient underwent additional surgery on (b)(6) 2016.During this surgery, the involved plate was removed and replaced by two stainless steel diaphyseal plates (positioned around the humerus in 90 degrees to each other).
|