|
The reported event could be confirmed, although the device was not returned for evaluation, an x-ray was provided by the customer which supported the event.A device inspection was not possible since the affected device was still implanted in the patient.A clinical statement was requested to hcp, based on the one x-ray in a/p view provided by customer.¿the fracture is unfavorable in terms of stability and for this reason the surgeon has probably decided to use the cables for additional stability.There seems to be a very long medial fragment, that has to be stabilized.However, despite the cables the medial support is reduced.Therefore, a higher load was on the nail and the lag screw.The initial reduction of the fracture seems to be pretty well.It cannot be said with one x-ray whether the bone is osteoporotic or osteopenic.Likely, but there are no clean signs, and this would have contributed only little to the failure.The race between the healing of the fracture and the expected failure of the nail has unfortunately ended unfavorably with a fracture of the nail.¿ based on the clinical opinion fracture was highly unstable and the load got transmitted on the nail and it broke subsequently.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.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.Due to insufficient information and product not returned the exact root cause could not be provided.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|