| Model Number |
MID-C 115 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/06/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On 06-nov-2024 apifix was notified that patient # (b)(6) heard a "pop", x-rays revealed an implant breakage over the ratchet area.The plan is to explant the device in (b)(6) 2024.
|
| |
|
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: on 06-nov-2024 apifix was notified that patient (b)(6) heard a "pop", x-rays revealed an implant breakage over the ratchet area.The plan is to explant the device in (b)(6).Risk assessment: reoperation events are a known risk that was assessed and recorded by the product risk assessment.Implant breakage is addressed in the ifu 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.The risk has been quantified, characterized, and documented as acceptable within full risk assessment.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On (b)(6) 2024 patient #746 underwent removal procedure without additional instrumentation."the plan is to watch the patient and proceed to fusion at later time, if necessary." the explanted device is expected to be returned to manufacturer.A failure analysis will be conducted.Once additional relevant details become available; a supplemental report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The explanted device was returned to manufacture, accompanied by a decontamination certificate.Upon inspection, the device was photographed and examined thoroughly.The weld seam was analyzed microscopically, revealing no visible inclusions or defects.Despite extensive evaluation, no definitive cause for the detachment of the welded cover could be identified.Minor wear was observed on the locking tooth, though it was deemed unrelated to the failure.Additionally, one spherical ring was inspected, with no wear detected.This failure mode is considered anomalous, as the device did not exhibit any detectable defects or wear patterns that typically correlate with such a failure, suggesting an isolated or highly unusual occurrence.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|