|
It was reported on (b)(6) 2023 that a my3d personalized pelvic reconstruction implant was unable to fit as intended, due to issues removing previous hardware.The previous hardware was an augment from another company which was intended to be removed, but it was left in the patient as it was difficult to remove intra-operatively.As a result, the acetabular reconstruction implant was slightly proud of the intended location.The procedure was able to be completed successfully.This event will be reportable to the fda as a malfunction, as the issue could cause or contribute to a serious injury in the future.
|
|
It was reported on (b)(6) 2023 that a my3d personalized pelvic reconstruction implant was unable to fit as intended, due to issues removing previous hardware.The previous hardware was an augment from another company which was intended to be removed, but it was left in the patient as it was difficult to remove intra-operatively.As a result, the acetabular reconstruction implant was slightly proud of the intended location.The procedure was able to be completed successfully with a 45 minute surgical delay.This event will be reportable to the fda as a malfunction, as the issue could cause or contribute to a serious injury in the future.
|
|
It was reported that during a my3d pelvic reconstruction case (c23-087) on (b)(6) 2023, there was difficulty placing the acetabular reconstruction implant.The patient had previously implanted hardware from a different company - acetabular cup, augment, acetabular cement, screws, posterior plates, floating bone.The patient was reported to have sclerotic bone.It was reported that a previously implanted augment could not be removed and was left in the patient.Additionally, the recommended posterior lateral approach in the design proposal was not used- the surgeon operated laterally.The procedure was completed with a 45-minute surgical delay.The patient had previously implanted hardware from a different company - acetabular cup, augment, acetabular cement, screws, posterior plates, floating bone.It was reported that a previously implanted augment could not be removed and was left in the patient.As the previously implanted augment was left in the patient, it likely caused difficulty fitting the patient matched implant into the patient, as it was designed with the intention of all previous hardware being removed.According to the case plan for c23-087, "all existing pelvic hardware and cement to be removed- acetabular cup, augment, existing acetabular cement, screws, posterior plates, floating bone." additionally, the recommended posterior lateral approach in the design proposal was not used- the surgeon operated laterally.Operating from a different plane than originally planned can also contribute to difficulty during implantation.
|