The surgeon inserted the pe inlay into the endplates without following the indicated surgical technique form prodisc l.The distractor was not used to progress the inlay into place and open the disc space.The inlay was pushed and mallet into place using only the inlay pusher.The surgeon thought the inlay was seated, but once the inserter was removed he realized the inlay was not properly seated.The surgeon could not re-attach the inserter to fully seat the inlay.It was at this point the surgeon decided that the best course of action was to remove the pe inlay and close the patient with the endplate intact.The patient appeared to have restored disc height and the endplates were positioned well enough for the surgeon to feel confident the surgery was a success from a neurological standpoint.The surgeon indicated directly that there was no problem with the implants or instruments used during the procedure, and this event was solely due the surgical technique used.There has been no indication of a scheduled revision procedure and the patient has been doing fine.Dhr review did not find any problems during manufacturing which may have contributed to the complaint.Complaint history determined the rate of complaints is within allowable limits indicated in the risk assessment.The risk assessment identified multiple risks related to this complaint.No devices were returned for evaluation.The endplates remain implanted in the patient.The information provided by the reporter indicates this complaint was caused by the surgeon's surgical technique.The pe inlay was inserted without the use of the distractor as indicated in the prodisc l surgical technique guide.This submission is for 1 of 3 devices involved in this event.
|
A patient was scheduled and diagnosed for prodisc l implantation at l5-s1.The patient underwent implantation surgery on (b)(6) 2021.During the procedure, the access surgeon provided a limited window to the vertebral level.The spine surgeon prepared the disc space and inserted the prodisc l endplates into the disc space.The surgeon then proceeded to place the pe inlay into the endplates without following the indicated surgical technique form prodisc l.The distractor was not used to progress the inlay into place and open the disc space.The inlay was pushed and mallet into place using only the inlay pusher.The surgeon thought the inlay was seated, but once the inserter was removed he realized the inlay was not properly seated.The surgeon could not re-attach the inserter to fully seat the inlay.It was at this point the surgeon decided that the best course of action was to remove the pe inlay and close the patient with the endplate intact.The patient appeared to have restored disc height and the endplates were positioned well enough for the surgeon to feel confident the surgery was a success from a neurological standpoint.The surgeon indicated directly that there was no problem with the implants or instruments used during the procedure, and this event was solely due the surgical technique used.The surgeon has not scheduled any additional intervention.The patient woke from surgery happy with positive results.The patient was sent home the same day of the procedure.The surgeon is closely monitoring this patient.As of (b)(6) 2021, the patient is doing fine.
|