|
The device history record was reviewed.The lot was manufactured to specifications and was released.There were no capas or non-conformances associated with this lot.A total of 8 complaints were found when performing a historical data review on the part number.Two complaints are for the same complaint event case.There were no trends identified during this review.There were no relates previous complaints events.The complaint from the customer states that the patient underwent a primary tlif procedure on (b)(6) 2021 for lumbar intervertebral foramen stenosis and lumbar disc hernia at l5/6.Clarification was requested from the customer and not received, but the operative level was assumed to be l5/s1.There were no issues reported with the primary surgery.On (b)(6) 2021 the patient underwent a subsequent procedure for removal of a hematoma.This was reported as part of complaint (b)(4).No further information was available for this procedure.On (b)(6) 2021 the patient underwent a revision procedure to address loose pedicle screws at s1 and a retropulsed intervertebral cage.This was reported as part of complaint (b)(4).An x-ray was provided on (b)(6) 2021 that is assumed to be pre-op and post-op xrays of the revision procedure on (b)(6) 2021.The pre-operative x-rays clearly show the intervertebral cage expulsed from the intervertebral disc space.The cage was successfully replaced and no further information was available.The customer did not provide information regarding disc preparation, trialing, and implantation of the primary implant, nor information regarding the disc preparation, trialing, and implantation of the revision implant.It is unknown if proper surgical technique was followed or if any traumatic event may have occurred that could have contributed to the expulsion of the implant.Not enough information was provided to determine a root cause of the failure.
|