The information provided indicates the patient received a 2-level prodisc c implantation.At 2-years post-op, the patient was scheduled for removal of the c6/7 device.The patient was experiencing radicular pain due to posterior positioning of the device and device shifting.The device was shown to be positioned too far posterior as seen in lateral x-rays.The superior endplate is in an anterior position on the core with the neck in a neutral position.There was also observed degeneration at c4/5 as well as anterior ossification of the prodisc c levels.The removal was performed on (b)(6) 2022.The c6/7 prodisc c device was replaced with a corpectomy cage and plate.There is no indication the c5/6 device was removed.Dhr review did not find any problems in manufacturing which may have contributed to the complaint.Complaint rates were found to be acceptable based on the analysis of the updated dfmea rates.The risk assessment determined the dfmea has identified the risks associated with this compliant.The device was retrieved and shipped to exponent under id# (b)(4).Stage 1 analysis is underway.If device analysis provides information that changes the outcome of this investigation, a follow up submission will be completed.The investigation concluded that the posterior positioning of the device is likely the cause of the complaint and removal.This positioning is attributed to use error while implanting the device.Secondary causes may be attributed to the degenerative changes at the c4/5 level as well as ossification observed on lateral x-rays.This submission is for 1 of 1 devices involved in this event.
|
The patient was implanted with 2x prodisc c us implant large-deep 5mm at c5/6 and c6/7 on (b)(6) 2019.On (b)(6) 2021, the patient was diagnosed to need revision/removal of the prodisc c device.The diagnosis was due to pain in both arms, posterior displacement, and device shifting.The patient did not have any comorbidities.X-ray images provided suggest the pdc device at c6/7 was positioned too far posterior.The images show the superior endplate canted forward in a neutral neck position.Additionally the x-rays show significant degeneration at c4/5 as well as heterotopic ossification anterior to the pdc implants.On (b)(6) 2022 the patient underwent prodisc c removal of the c6/7 implant.The prodisc c was replaced with a corpectomy cage and plate from an unknown manufacturer (not centinel spine, llc.).There is no indication the c5/6 device was removed.
|