|
Production process analysis: a review of the device history record confirmed that the device was manufactured and tested according to relevant procedures and shipped according to manufacturer's specifications.User (surgeon and patient) information analysis: patient (b)(6) index procedure was performed on (b)(6) 2021.On (b)(6) 2022 patient (b)(6) underwent revision surgery due to the implant reaching maximum elongation.X-rays revealed that the implant was not placed according to pre-operative plan.Namely, it was placed at t4-t5-t12 as opposed to t5-t6-t12, and over time the implant elongation accommodated curve progression rather than correction.During the revision a new mid-c system which was implanted and located at t4-t5-t11, and per the company's impression the device was still not positioned to fully support the deformity correction.On 12-jun-2024 apifix was notified that patient (b)(6) is being brought back to the or on friday (b)(6) 2024 for apifix removal and transition to posterior spinal fusion.No report of patient harm or complications was received.Apifix followed up with the reporter for additional information, according to the reporter, the patient began to develop a secondary lumbar curvature, thus the reason for the re-op.Reoperation events are a known risk that was assessed and recorded by the product risk management file.The risk of patient re operation due to inadequate curve correction/imbalance is a known risk, and has been characterized and documented as acceptable within full risk assessment.The events of inadequate 'curve correction' and 'imbalance' are addressed in the ifu (dms-766 rev u) as potential risks associated with the mid-c system.The explanted device has been returned to the manufacturer and will be evaluated; upon its completion, once new information comes to light, then a supplemental medwatch report will be submitted.
|
|
On 12-jun- 2024 apifix was notified that patient (b)(6) (pas #086-a017) is being brought back to the or on friday (b)(6) 2024 for apifix removal and transition to posterior spinal fusion.No report of patient harm or complications was received.Apifix followed up with the reporter for additional information, according to the reporter, the patient began to develop a secondary lumbar curvature, thus the reason for the re-op.
|