Device report from synthes reports an event in (b)(6) as follows: it was reported that a test phase with the percutaneous stabilization system "viper prime" in combination with the navigation system from brainlab in the context of a patient-specific patient indication was occurring at the (b)(6).Various orthokits of the navigable viper prime system (instruments and implants) were stationed on site.Instruction of the instruments was conducted on site.Due to the complexity of the navigated viper prime settings, it was also verbally agreed with the users that any operations with this navigable viper prime set of instruments may only be carried out by a surgical assistant or by a representative.Up to (b)(6) 2021, about 2-3 accompanied surgeries of this type were successfully carried out by dr (b)(6) and/or primary bauer.A surgery was planned for (b)(6) 2021.No objection to carrying out such surgeries exclusively with a surgical accompaniment from a synthes representative was justified in such a way that the users are sufficiently familiar with this system and that all implants are complete.Dr.(b)(6) on (b)(6) 2022 reported over the phone about a patient specific case with the percutaneous navigated dorsal spondylodesis supply with the mis system viper prime from (b)(6) 2021.Complications from the (b)(6) 2021 surgery arose in 2022.Dr.(b)(6) described that after defining the navigation data set, he had the navigable viper prime setting instruments fitted with the respective implants by the instrumentalist and two lumbar vertebrae using this navigation data set with the viper prime pedicle screws (screw diameter/length not documented) percutaneously or semi-percutaneously occupied.After implanting all 4 viper prime pedicle screws, dr (b)(6) requested a control scan and found that all implanted screws were shifted by a parallel plane in the image.As dr (b)(6) informed me here, the confirmed misplacement of the pedicle screws damaged neural structures.These four screws were then removed millimeter by millimeter from the vertebral bodies in a time-consuming process.As a result, dr (b)(6) requested the conventional percutaneous navigable "viper2" instruments stationed at (b)(6) regional hospital for control, which he routinely uses.He has a new, up-to-date navigation data record created in advance and references both the navigable "viper2" instrument set (awl, awl) and the navigable viper prime setting instrument set with a viper prime screw.According to dr (b)(6), after locating the anatomical landmark (pedicle entry point) with the navigable viper2 instrumentation (awl, awl), it was accurately depicted on the navigation imaging.As a comparison, he placed the navigable viper prime insertion instrument set referenced with a viper prime screw on the same anatomical landmark (pedicle entry point) and noticed that the screw was again shifted caudally in the navigation imaging.Based on this intraoperative comparison, dr.(b)(6) questioned the accuracy of the viper prime navigable insertion instrument set, arguing that the conventional viper2 navigable instrument set with the identical navigation dataset accurately determines the anatomical landmark (pedicle entry point), while the viper prime navigable instrument set does not match the anatomical landmark ( pedicle entry point) and navigation imaging.Consequently, dr.(b)(6) continued to operate with the navigable viper2 instrument set and fitted two vertebral bodies with 2 expedium cfx screws each (6x40mm).Due to these complications, dr.(b)(6) complains about a considerable delay in the planned operating time.Due to the fact that neither (j&j) nor a representative of brainlab (navigation) accompanied the operation, the description is limited to what dr.(b)(6) said.The surgery was delayed approximately 120 minutes.Actions taken were to remove the viper prime pedicle screws.The procedure was completed successfully.The patient experienced a neuronal disorder; a burning sensation in both feet.This is report 7 of 10 for (b)(4).This report is for a viper guidewire.
|
Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.Product was not returned.Based on the information available, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.This complaint will be accounted for and monitored via post market surveillance activities.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.No code available is for neuronal disorder; a burning sensation in both feet.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|