This report is for an unknown synfix construct/unknown lot.Part and lot numbers are unknown; udi number is unknown.Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.Product was not returned.Based on the information available, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.This complaint will be accounted for and monitored via post market surveillance activities.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.(b)(4).
|
This report is being filed after the review of the following journal article: yun d., et al (2018) salvage anterior lumbar interbody fusion for pseudoarthrosis after posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 10 patients,world neurosurgery volume 111, pages e746-e755 (korea south) https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.Wneu.2017.12.155.This study aims to assess the usefulness of alif in salvage surgery to treat failed plif or tlif.Between december 2006 and december 2016, a total 10 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion through tlif or plif and who had symptomatic pseudoarthrosis, a history of previous cage removal, and underwent salvage surgery for alif were studied.Perimeter (medtronic, dublin, ireland); wsh (nhs co.Ltd., seoul, korea); syncage & synfix (synthes gmbh, zuchwil, switzerland) were used.The average follow-up period was 24.3 to 7.57 months.The following complications were reported as follows: (patient no.7) a case of a (b)(6) year old female had preoperative subsidence ; aortic calcification and pseudoarthrosis.(patient no.8) a case of a (b)(6) year old male had preoperative subsidence; pseudoarthrosis.(patient no.9)a case of a (b)(6) year old male on the plain radiographs and ct scans, 2 cages previously implanted in the l4-5 levels presented with posterior dislodgement.-the right cage was compressing the l4 spinal nerve root.-a periscrew halo was observed in the 2 screws inserted at l4.The screw inserted right into the s1 level passed through the right foramen of the s1 level and was suspected to be damaging the s1 spinal nerve root.-having posterior screw malposition and pseudoarthrosis of the interbody cage ; aortic calcification.(patient no.10) a case of a (b)(6) year old female (patient 10) had posterior screw malposition and pseudoarthrosis of the interbody cage, preoperative subsidence and aortic calcification.-one cage was removed for this patient.Previous cage showed anterior dislodgement.-on the plain radiographs and ct scans, it can be seen that the 2 cages previously inserted have subsidence -the cage was inserted into the right side and stuck to the posterior of the l4 vertebral body and to the front of the l5 vertebral body.The cage was inserted into the body up to half of the upper and lower vertebral bodies.-the left cage had subsided but was not more severe than the right side.-at the l4 level, the screw inserted into the right invaded disc space at the l3-4 levels.This is report 1 of 9 for (b)(4).This report is for an unknown synthes synfix and syncage.
|