| Model Number |
15025-075-045 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
08/23/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device has been returned and is pending evaluation.The root cause is unable to be determined at this time.A supplemental report will be submitted upon completion of device evaluation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A patient underwent a lumbar spinal fusion surgery on (b)(6) 2020.Postoperatively, it was discovered a screw had fractured.On (b)(6) 2021, a revision surgery was performed to remove the screw.No patient injury reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Corrected data: d4.Model # 15025-075-040; 15025-075-045 lot# 8375406; 8208209s3 d9.Yes.Additional information: h3.Yes h6.Medical device problem code:1260 "component" code:568 type of investigation: 10 ; 3331 investigation findings: 3243 conclusion 19.H10.The device history records were reviewed and found no anomalies with the manufacturing of both implants.Only the fractured tulip heads were returned.Both had some nicks and scratches present from in-situ removal during revision.F1717 dynamic loading testing was performed on a construct using similar screw (7.5mm x 35mm).The screw shank failure is consistent with the returned tulip heads which was observed at 3.5 million cycles at 150 newtons.When the screw shank cam pocket is aligned perpendicular to the construct rods, failure can occur at the cam pocket cut.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H6: health effect- clinical code: 4582.Investigation conclusion: 22.H10: the device history records were reviewed and found no anomalies with the manufacturing of both implants.Only the fractured tulip heads were returned.Both had some nicks and scratches present from in-situ removal during revision.F1717 dynamic loading testing was performed on a construct using similar screw (7.5mm x 35mm).The screw shank failure is consistent with the returned tulip heads which was observed at 3.5 million cycles at 150 newtons.It is unknown when the index surgery or revision surgery dates were.Index surgery trajectory and location are also unknown, but screw size (ø7.5mm x 40/45mm) suggests implantation in the sacropelvic region.Supporting construct details and patient physical characteristics are also unknown.This failure is consistent with screw failure expectations observed when used in loading conditions that exceed the design parameters set forth in mechanical performance testing.In this instance, the pedicle screw appears to have been exposed to fatigue stresses beyond the performance loads for which it was designed or intended.This can be precipitated by environmental factors such as falls, patient postop weight bearing activity, or other adverse patient events.Other factors that may contribute to complications and adverse reactions (i.E.Construct instability) can include poor fusion development (non-union and/or pseudoarthrosis) or patient bmi.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|