| Catalog Number |
CDL-637L |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Dysphagia/ Odynophagia (1815)
|
| Date of Event |
02/26/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Information provided states that patient had two (2) m6-c devices implanted at c4-c6 on an unknown date.Patient began experiencing swelling and difficulty swallowing.The two m6-c devices were explanted on (b)(6), 2024 and a posterior fixation was performed at c4-t1.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device has not been returned for evaluation.The risk management files were reviewed and no new risks have been identified.Rmf 0003 rev 38 line 19.2.- dysphagia, hoarseness/dysphonia, vocal chord paralysis, airway obstruction, leading to major/surgical intervention, with explantation rmf 0003 rev 38 line 12.58.- infection, infected abscess or infected cyst (not involving resorption or osteolysis), leading to surgical/major intervention with explantation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The build lhr was examined including the final inspection records and the in-process measurements.There were no relevant ncmrs associated with this lot.The devices met the m6-c product specification including the axial stiffness and flexural resistance specifications.Rmf 0003 rev 38 line 19.2.- dysphagia, hoarseness/dysphonia, vocal chord paralysis, airway obstruction, leading to major/surgical intervention, with explantation rmf 0003 rev 38 line 12.58.- infection, infected abscess or infected cyst (not involving resorption or osteolysis), leading to surgical/major intervention with explantation.Based on the inspection of the retrieved m6-c, in conjunction with the clinical data provided, the device did not fail mechanically.There was no evidence of collapse and there was no apparent loss of retention of the sheath.No radiographic images were provided to investigate the presence of bone resorption.The adjacent device at c4-c5 was also intact at time at removal and did not appear to fail mechanically.Destructive examination of the inner surfaces of the device is needed to examine the integrity of the fiber construct and the core.It is unclear whether infection played a role in the failure of this procedure, as no microbiological or histopathological lab results were provided; however, as difficulty swelling and fluid collection which had required drainage was noted, it is highly likely that infection was present at the time of removal, and not mechanical device failure.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Devcie was returned for investigation.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|