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.Complaint sample was evaluated and the reported event was confirmed.Visual evaluation of the returned device shows signs of repeated use and is fractured on the lateral side of post.Device history record (dhr) was reviewed and no discrepancies relevant to the reported event were found.Evaluation of the returned device identified the fracture was consistent with the tasp fractures analyzed in previous investigation.It identified that the common failure modes for the tasp devices include either bending overload or low cycle fatigue culminating in bending overload as evident by the presence of hackle marks, river lines and striations features on the fracture surface.A definitive root cause cannot 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.
|