|
The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the reported failure.Device inspection revealed the following: the received nail is completely broken in the webs of the proximal lag screw hole.The appearance of the breakage surface of the right web suggests that the nail breakage had its origin in this area (evident by appearance of lines of rest/ waves).Starting from that region with an incipient crack the breakage progressed through the cross section.As a result of which the left web broke in a much quicker way with increased tensile load.Bearing marks signifies interaction of metal parts under high load.General aspects: the gamma3 nail is an 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 by one or more deficits, e.G.Insufficient bone healing, product damage.Generally, the risk of a 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.The event details given in the reported event about the activity levels of the patient and requirement of ¿revision surgery¿ gives a hint towards insufficient bone healing, as the nail broke within 3 months.The above investigation is sufficient to suggest that the nail breakage was not linked to a deficiency of the device but was rather patient related.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.If any further information is provided, the complaint report will be updated.
|