Patient x-rays were analyzed independently by two surgeons specialized in oral and maxillofacial surgery employed at different hospitals in (b)(6).Both state that considering the type of fracture and particularly the area of the mandible where it occurred, which is subject to the highest masticatory forces and movement, it would have been preferable to choose a more stable plate provided with a central bar rather than the ones used, which bend easily due to the small spaces between the holes and their reduced thickness of only 1 mm.The fractured plates initially chosen by the user would be more appropriate for the upper midface area that is hardly subject to any forces.A review of complaint history for this device for the last 13 years yielded no results; i.E., no complaints were received during this time period.Investigations are in progress.Should additional information become available, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
On (b)(6) 2017 - two bone plates implanted in fractured mandible.On (b)(6) 2017 - control x-ray, bone plates intact.On (b)(6) 2017 - panoramic radiograph reveals fracture of the upper bone plate (plate #1, current mdr report).Patient experiencing pain.On (b)(6) 2017 - fracture of bone plate #2 is detected.On (b)(6) 2018 - both plates explanted.No alveolar fistula, no infection, no pathologic mobility.Consolidation fine.On (b)(6) 2018 - new, thicker 2-mm bone plates implanted.Signs of infection during follow-up.New plates intact.Standard postoperative protocol followed.
|