The broken gamma3 trochanteric nail was classified as primary product during investigation.No deviations were found during review of the manufacturing and inspection documents (dhr).The nail returned was documented as faultless prior to distribution.During investigation no material, design or manufacturing related issues were found.The nail was found heavily drill marked at the posterior bridge within the proximal lag screw hole.The breakage line was found within the drill marked area.This misdrilling effect caused by the lag screw step drill did weak the posterior bridge significantly and caused a notching effect on the lateral side that favours the nail breakage.Lines of rest are visible on the bridge breakage surfaces; the bridges broke step by step.The lines of rest run from lateral towards medial.These lines of rest indicate (in combination with the found drill marks), that the nail breakage started at the posterior bridge at lateral.After the posterior bridge was full or main partly broken, the anterior bridge followed also step by step but quicker than the posterior bridge.The nail broke due to a fatigue fracture.Bearing points within the proximal nail hole indicate that loads were applied postoperatively to the implants over a long period; these loads did most likely also contribute to the nail breakage.The customer reported that the patient was fallen four weeks before the hospital follow up visit.Most likely the nail and bone got fractured due to a traumatic overload.Traumatic overloads, postoperatively loads and intra-operatively implant damages are adverse effects that can lead to implant breakages and are listed in the ifu and operative technique.Misdrilling could occur in case the target device was pre-damaged, instruments were not assembled correctly or bending forces were applied to the drill and/or target device during drilling.The operative technique includes that the target device shall be checked prior to every surgery.Because no manufacturer related issues were found the case is attributed to the patient, contributed by the user.Review of complaint history, capa databases and risk analysis did not identify any discrepancies.There are no open actions in place related to the reported event for the subject product(s).No non-conformity was identified.
|