|
CHOICESPINE, LLC SURGERY. DR. KNETSCHE AND HIS DISTRIBUTOR RETURNED THE SCREWS AND ASSOCIATED HAR; LANCER,THUNDERBOLT,SET SCREW,NEW THREAD
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
MT20-0002 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581)
|
| Date of Event |
11/01/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Images were obtained for all pedicle screws, set screws, and rods associated with the complaint, which found uniform depressions of the rod on the set screw and pedicle screw core for the t12 - l4 constructs.The edges of the tulip slot where the rod would rest was also photographed and little to no deformation or damage was found on the t12 - l4 constructs.Conversely, the l5 and s1 tulip slots had significant deformation present on one side of the tulip and the set screws and/or tulip cores had deformation in multiple locations, which would indicate that the rod was not fully reduced in situ.Investigation of the torque required to back out of unlock the new set screws (mt20-0002) versus the old set screws (mt20-0001) was performed with off the shelf production implants (mt11-654-120, mt10-6550, mt20-0001, mt20-0002, mt20-p090, and mt20-p095) at a locking torque of 70 in/lbs.Results of the testing indicated that the unlocking torque for the new set screws was greater than that of the old set screws (43.20 in/lbs.& 33.67 in/lbs., respectively).The unlocking torque of the new set screw is lower than that of the old set screw if there is a gap present between the rod and the tulip (14.90 in/lbs.& 17.90 in/lbs., respectively); however, only n=1 was performed and the difference between unlocking torque is not significant (3 in/lbs.).The part numbers and lot numbers were evaluated for each device returned, which yielded no correlation between manufacturing dates or manufactures.A definite root cause can't be determined at this time; however, due to the uneven scoring or wear patterns noted on the l5 and s1 constructs, in addition to review of the immediate post-operative images, the rod length may have been too short for the construct.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Dr.(b)(6) performed a thunderbolt revision on a patient on (b)(6)2023.He removed the original pedicle screws as there was believed to be set screw disengagement on some of the levels.This can be seen in the images below prior to the revision surgery.Dr.(b)(6) and his distributor returned the screws and associated hardware to choicespine for investigation and analysis.The hardware was provided to the engineering team for investigation in conjunction with quality department.The original surgery information was: original surgery date: on (b)(6) 2023 t12-l1, l1-2, l2-3, l3-4, l4-5 dlif, l5-s1 alif, t12-s1 psf the revision was completed on (b)(6) 2023 t12-s1 psf revision, r/t set screws popped out.Each level screw and set screw is labeled in their own cup.Rods also labeled.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|