|
Updated sections b.1., b.2., b.5., and h.1.To reflect serious injury.Visual, dimensional, material and functional analysis could not be performed as the device was not returned.Device and complaint history records were reviewed and no relevant manufacturing issues or similar complaints were identified.The corresponding ifu was reviewed and the following was identified: the choice of proper shape, size, and design of the implant for each patient is crucial to the success of the surgery.The surgeon is responsible for the choice, which depends on each patient.Patients overweight will be responsible for additional stresses and strains on the device, and may cause metal fatigue and/ or lead to deformation or failure of the implants.The size and shape of the bone structures determine size, shape and type of the implants.Once implanted, the implants are subjected to stresses and strains.These repeated stresses on the implants must be taken into consideration by surgeon at the time of the choice of the implant, during implantation as well as in post-operative follow-up period.Indeed, the stresses and strains on the implants may cause metal fatigue or fracture or deformation of the implants, before the bone graft has become completely consolidated.This may result in further side effects or necessitate the early removal of the osteosynthesis device.Improper selection, placement, positioning and fixation of these devices may result in unusual stress conditions reducing the service life of the implant.Correspondence with physician states that patient had sclerotic bone, which would indicate that the patient had increased bone density.It is possible that excessive torsional/compressive force was placed on the tulip during insertion due to patients sclerotic bone, which could have caused the tulip to disengage.However, as the two implants were not returned for investigation, this root cause cannot be established conclusively.
|