Information provided for this case indicates the patient anatomy (blood vessels and scar tissue) prevented the removal of the prodisc l device from being completed successfully.The patient was experiencing continued pain, but there was no direct link established to indicate this pain was caused or contributed to by the device.Communications suggested this prodisc l device may not have been the best treatment for the patient.There was no alleged malfunction of the prodisc l device indicated.The device was left implanted within the patient, and a posterior fusion is expected to occur at a later date.Patient specific information was not provided.A date for the posterior fusion is unknown and not provided to centinel spine.The risks associated with this adverse event are known and fully mitigated per the device risk assessment.No trends in previous complaints for this device were identified.
|
Prodisc l removal was scheduled for a patient due to continued pain.While attempting to access the level of implantation for the pdl, the access surgeon could not mobilize the blood vessels which were anterior to the pdl device.There was significant scar tissue anterior to the device as well.Due to the blood vessel obstruction, the surgical team determined removal of the pdl was too high a risk.The procedure was aborted, and the patient's surgical wound was closed without further issues.The reported information indicates the patient would receive a posterior fusion to limit the motion of the prodisc l device at a later date.
|