A patient received a prodisc l implant on (b)(6) 2020.On (b)(6) 2021, the device was explanted and replaced with an alif using unknown devices.The patient suffered a pars fracture and pain.The surgeon believes there is an unknown traumatic event which led to the fracture and pain.The patient reported pain after undergoing spinal traction.The prodisc l pe inlay was also dislodged from the inferior endplate.The superior endplate migrated anteriorly and subluxated over the pe inlay.The surgeon indicated the pain and fracture were not caused by the prodisc l device; however, previous complaints indicate these malfunctions have a more than remote chance of causing surgical intervention to preclude serious injury.The information and investigation suggest that the malfunction is likely due to the patient's traumatic event as indicated by the surgeon.There was no indication of a problem during manufacturing based on the device dhr review.The risk assessment for the device indicated the associated risks are identified, mitigated, and accepted.The device was retrieved and sent for scientific testing and analysis.If the results of the evaluation change the results of this investigation, a follow up submission will be completed.This submission is for 1 of the 3 devices involved in this event.
|