Additional information provided: patient age, sex, date of birth, weight, other relevant history and implantation date.Microbiology and radiographic images have been requested.
|
Additional information received states:.The device was intact at the time of removal with no obvious deficiency on the m6 device itself.Inflammation was noted and infection was suspected, with anterior fluid collection (mass) was noted as cause of removal.The provided information indicated that the device was intact in situ and damaged during removal.The mechanical damage suggests that force was required to remove it, and that the device was fixed at the time of removal.The posterior fiber construct was largely intact; however, some in vivo fraying was visible through the horizontal tear in the sheath.Due to the extent of the extraction damage, it was not possible to clearly assess the in vivo condition of the fiber construct.Approximately 65% of the core was not present due to removal, however some invivo damage was still visible including imprints of the pockets, loss of furrows and some light abrasive damage on the superior and inferior surfaces.Radiographs were available for the pre-operative and first 6 post-operative months.Spinalkinetics' medical advisor reviewed the images and noted that the device appeared to be appropriately sized and positioned.No interim radiographs beyond that period or prior to revision at 77 months were available; however radiolucent lines were noted as early as the first available post operative images.Based on the inspection of the retrieved m6-c, the cause of this event was unclear.The device was heavily damaged during removal; however, the extent of the damage likely indicates that it was both fixed and intact at the time of removal, as reported, suggesting that the device had not failed at the time of removal.
|