|
This follow-up report is being submitted to relay additional information.The following sections were updated: b4, b5, g4, g7, h1, h2, h3, h6, h10 corrected: h6 patient code: the patient did not retain a foreign body as initially reported.Visual inspection of the returned product noted the head is fractured, confirming the complaint.The product was sent to sem for additional evaluation.Screw sample analyzed by sem showed that its fracture surface consisted of excessive smearing likely due to post-fracture damage and evidence of overload fracture.Crack initiation site could not be identified on the fracture due to excessive smearing on the screw which obscured the details.A region of fracture on the screw showed sheared ductile overload dimples indicating the crack propagation direction.There were no indications of fatigue mode of fracture identified in the non-smeared areas on the screw fracture surface.However, the primary mode of fracture and crack initiation couldn¿t be determined.Eds semi-quantitative elemental analysis of the screw showed that it was consistent with ti-6al-4v alloy.Device history record was reviewed and no discrepancies were found.Root cause was unable to be determined.If any further information is found which would change or alter any conclusions or information, a supplemental will be filed accordingly.Zimmer biomet will continue to monitor for trends.
|