|
Corrected data: a1.(b)(6) additional information: d4.Model# 236-1-24014 lot# re44902 ud#: (b)(4).H6.Investigation findings: 3243 investigation conclusion: 22, 4307 h10.The explanted plate and qty 6 screws were returned for evaluation.Review of the device history record indicates qty (b)(4) of pn 336-0234 ln sm158180 were manufactured to drawing rev b.There were no manufacturing or processing-related irregularities.They were found to be properly manufactured and released in accordance with design specifications.The device has been in the field since august 2022.Review of the device history records indicates qty (b)(4) of pn 236-1-24014 ln re44902 to drawing revision b.There were no manufacturing or processing-related irregularities.They were found to be properly manufactured and released in accordance with design specifications.The device has been in the field since june 2022.Review of the device history records indicates qty (b)(4) of pn 236-1-24014 ln 8857213 to drawing revision b.There were no manufacturing or processing-related irregularities.They were found to be properly manufactured and released in accordance with design specifications.The device has been in the field since october 10/2021.Review of explanted plate confirms that the blocker component at one distal level of the 2-level plate is fractured at both blocker wings.The surgeon reported that during the revision all blockers remained in the locked position, but one of the blocker wings had fractured.It is evident that the fractured blocker at this distal level experienced significant post-operative loads.Examination of the plate shows plastic deformation around the distal screw pockets, indicating significant post-operative loads between the plate and screws.Similarly, examination of the explanted screws shows witness marks and deformed regions that suggest point loading of the screw against the blocker, plate, and possibly the interbody cages.Labeling review: "warnings/cautions/precautions: -without solid bone fusion, this device cannot be expected to support the cervical spine indefinitely and may fail due to bone-metal interface, metal, or bone failure.-based on the fatigue testing results, the physician/surgeon should consider the levels of implantation, patient weight, patient activity level, compliance of the patient, and other patient conditions which may have an impact on the performance and results of this system.No spinal implant can withstand body loads for an indefinite period of time without the support of bone.In the event that successful fusion is not achieved; bending, breakage, loosening, migration and/or disassembly of the device will occur.-potential risks identified with the use of this device, which may require additional surgery, include device component fracture, loss of fixation, non-union, fracture of the vertebrae, and necrosis of bone, neurological injury and vascular or visceral injury." "possible adverse effects: the following complications and adverse reactions have been shown to occur with the use of similar spinal instrumentation.These effects and any other known by the surgeon should be discussed with the patient preoperatively.- initial or delayed loosening, disassembly, bending, dislocation and/or breakage of device components." "postoperative management: the patient should have a complete understanding of and compliance with the purpose and limitations of the implant devices.The surgeon should instruct the patient on how to compensate for any loss in range of spinal motion due to bone fusion.-additional or revision surgery may be necessary to correct an adverse effect.-the surgeon should instruct the patient regarding amount and time frame after surgery of any weight bearing activity.The increased risk of bending, dislocation, and /or breakage of the implant devices, as well as an undesired surgical result are consequences of any type of early or excessive weight bearing, vibration motion, fall, jolts or other movements preventing proper healing and/or fusion development.".
|