| Model Number |
6L |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Neck Pain (2433)
|
| Date of Event |
03/14/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The build lhr for fg 0005-05, (b)(6), 1684675 was examined including the final inspection records and the in-process measurements.The device met the m6-c product specification including the axial stiffness and flexural resistance specifications.No alleged device failure or malfunction and was only removed due to facet arthropathy.The risk management files were reviewed and no new risks were identified.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Information provided states that an m6-c artificial cervical disc was placed at c5/6 in 2021.The device was removed due to facet arthopothy and the need for a greater decompression at the index level.The patient had presented with 2 level symptoms resulting in the need for a fusion at c6/7 using interbody and plate.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Information provided states that an m6-c artificial cervical disc was placed at c5/6 in 2021.The device was removed due to facet arthopothy and the need for a greater decompression at the index level.The patient had presented with 2 level symptoms resulting in the need for a fusion at c6/7 using interbody and plate.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The build lhr for fg 0005-05 (b)(6) 1684675 was examined including the final inspection records and the in-process measurements.The device met the m6-c product specification including the axial stiffness and flexural resistance specifications.No alleged device failure or malfunction and was only removed due to facet arthropathy.The risk management files were reviewed and no new risks were identified.Based on the inspection of the retrieved m6-c, in conjunction with the clinical data, and the provided radiographic images, the device had not failed mechanically at the time of removal.The device was likely intact, as reported, with little to no in vivo damage visible to the sheath, fiber, and endplates.The core was not returned for inspection.Only one pre-revision image was available, which appeared to confirm that the device was still functional at the time of removal.The provided information appears to indicate that the device was likely contraindicated for the patient and the failure of this procedure was unrelated to device performance.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|