| Model Number |
PDL-M-IP00S |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Expulsion (2933)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Vertebral Fracture (4520)
|
| Date of Event |
02/22/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The information provided indicates a 2-level l4/5 and l5/s1 patient suffered a prodisc l inlay expulsion at l5/s1.The patient also suffered bilateral pedicle fractures at l4 and l5.It is unknown whether the inlay expulsion or fractures occurred first or if one caused the other.It is unknown when the expulsion and fracture occurred.The surgeon estimated approximately 1 year post op.Imaging confirmed fracture and inlay expulsion around (b)(6) 2022.No specific patient symptoms were indicated by the surgeon.The patient imaging suggests the bone may be sclerotic.Surgeon peer to peer discussion and imaging review suggested the fractures be secured with screws through revision.The inlay expulsion may have been caused by the positioning of the superior endplate.Immediate post op imaging showed the superior endplate was in a more anterior position that the inlay and inferior endplate.The sacral slope and angle may have introduced sheer force to expel the inlay.The patient underwent revision by another unknown surgeon on an unknown date.The revision removed the l5/s1 prodisc l device and replaced it with a fusion cage.The l4/l5 prodisc l was left in place.Posterior fixation was added from l4 to s2 as well.Dhr review did not find any problems in manufacturing which may have contributed to the event.Complaint history found the rate of complaints and harms for inlay expulsion to be remote.Review of the dfmea identified inlay expulsion as a hazardous situation which can lead to multiple harms.One of the two prodisc l devices was removed, but there is no indication this device was available for retrieval.No device evaluation could be performed.Investigation conclusions: there may be multiple factors to this complaint.Based on previous complaints, the implant positioning and surgical technique used to align the prodisc l components for the axis of rotation may have been a significant factor.This has been indicated in prior complaints and through prior investigations.Additionally the patient's lifting episode and possible heavy lifting may have contributed to the inlay expulsion and/or fractures.The patient's sclerotic bone may have been a contributing comorbidity as well.This submission is for 1 of 6 devices involved in this event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A patient received a 2-level prodisc l construct at l4/5 and l5/s1 on (b)(6) 2020.The patient had a lifting episode at the onset of symptoms approximately 1 year post-op.The patient x-ray imaging showed bilateral pedicle fractures of l4 and l5 as well as inlay expulsion of the l5/s1 prodisc l implant.Peer to peer review of the patient suggested there was no space between the facets of the involved vertebrae which placed stress along the pedicles.A heavy lifting activity could have created the force to cause the bilateral fractures.In (b)(6) 2022 the patient underwent revision by a different unknown surgeon to remove the prodisc l implant from l5/s1 and replace it with an unknown fusion cage with integrated fixation.The patient also received posterior fixation from l4 to s2.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|