Mectalif posterior handle (ref.03.22.10.0056.Lot unknown), mectalif oblique handle (ref.03.22.10.0262, lot unknown) and mectalif inner rod (ref.03.22.10.0055, lot unknown) were used during surgery.On (b)(6) 2017 the r and d project manager performed a visual inspection of the retrieved items and commented as follows: both the posterior and the oblique cages present damaging of the coating and scratches particularly in the back side of the devices.The posterior cage is not deformed and the threaded interface is functional.The oblique cage is deformed but the threaded interface is functional.The scratches on the back of the devices are compatible with a rotation of the implants after the fixation on the inserter.The application of a rotation movement with an high force or a not perfect fixation of the devices on the inserter can produce this kind of scratches.The damaging of the coating of both cages and the deformation of the oblique one are probably due to the removal process.Batch review performed on 09 november 2017.Mectalif posterior interbody fusion device peek/ti 11x25x7 l5°, code 03.27.020, lot.148876 (k133192) (b)(4).
|
It was hard to insert the cages into the intervertebral at l4/l5, even though the surgeon tried to trial implant and distracted the dedicated size.After that the surgeon found the cage deformation.There was no delay as they used backup implants to proceed.The surgeon's comments: there is a problem of the implant inserter itself.When hitting an inserter with a hammer, the inner part was loosen.As a result, when inserting the cage into the intervertebral, appropriate force would not be added to the appropriate place.It would be the root cause of this event.
|