| Model Number |
MID-C 125 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Pain (1994)
|
| Date of Event |
07/18/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On 18-jul-2024, apifix was notified that patient # (b)(6) (pas# 090-a011) presented with back pain and a broken rod at the clinic.The patient, who is approximately 2.5 years post-index surgery for lenke 1, is scheduled to undergo a procedure on (b)(6) 2024, to remove the implants.The broken rod will not be replaced during this procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation: 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.Surgeon, information analysis: patient # (b)(6) (pas# 090-a011) index procedure was performed on (b)(6) 2022 on 18-jul-2024, apifix was notified that patient # (b)(6) (pas# 090-a011) presented with back pain and a broken rod at the clinic.The patient, who is approximately 2.5 years post-index surgery for lenke 1, is scheduled to undergo a procedure on (b)(6) 2024, to remove the implants.The broken rod will not be replaced during this procedure.On (b)(6) 2024 patient underwent removal surgery.No report of patient harm/complications was received.Reoperation events are a known risk that was assessed and recorded by the product risk assessment.Implant breakage is addressed in the ifu (dms-4472 rev g, dms-766 rev u) as potential risks associated with the mid-c system and spinal surgery generally.The risk of broken rod - implant breakage has been assessed and found to be acceptable (dms#777 rev s hazard id 106- mechanical failure resulting in breakage of rod) the risk has been quantified, characterized, and documented as acceptable within full risk assessment.The explanted device has been returned to the manufacturer for analysis.Upon completion of the evaluations, once additional relevant details become available; a supplemental report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Return analysis the explanted device was returned, and was subjected to cleaning, steam sterilizing, and engineering evaluation.The device was obviously fractured in the pole component around the mid-point of the pole.Post-fracture, the device remained implanted as the fracture plane, inside of the body, and edge of the base and pole showed signs of wear.The fracture plane was worn smooth and thus fracture mode is unable to be identified.The spherical rings were inspected for wear.No wear was visibly observed on the spherical ring of the pole.Over the years, the company already implemented corrective action with the following: - on nov 2017, all surgeons received a letter detailing the importance of screw insertion trajectory.The topic is also covered in the company's training presentation.- eco-38 (approved in h170001/s002): replaced the mid-c 125 that extends by 40 mm to mid-c 125 that extends by 50mm allowing more overlap between the pole and base.- eco-46 (approved in h170001/s002): a trial tool added to the surgical tools to aid the surgeon in detecting if access tissue remains below the implant.- on march 2020, the topic of practicing severe sports added to the mid-c training presentation.A precaution about severe sports was included in the ifu approved in h170001.- on october 2020, as part of apifix commitment to continuous improvement, capa #020-01 was initiated to further investigate to prevent and minimize the rate of implant breakage.- eco-13264 (approved in h170001/s015): increase strength through: decrease stress concentrations and increase cross sectional area at critical regions.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|