| 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 |
11/12/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
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 (b)(6) 2024 apifix was notified that at patient (b)(6) (pas #091-a023)'s 3 year follow-up, x-rays showed that the apifix rod was broken.The patient experienced popping of the device but no back pain associated with it.The patient is scheduled to have the device removed on (b)(6) 2024.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.The explanted device is expected to be returned to manufacturer following the removal.A failure analysis will be conducted.Once additional relevant details become available; a supplemental report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2024 apifix was notified that at patient (b)(6) (pas #091-a023)'s 3 year follow-up, x-rays showed that the apifix rod was broken.The patient experienced popping of the device but no back pain associated with it.The patient is scheduled to have the device removed on (b)(6) 2024.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On 12-dec-2024 patient # (b)(6) underwent removal procedure.The tissue at the surgical site and adjacent to the implant at the time of removal was described as being 'pink' and 'tissue healthy'.No metalosis was observed.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 orthopediatrics in (b)(6) and was subjected to cleaning, steam sterilizing, and engineering evaluation.Upon receipt, the device was obviously fractured at the mid-point of the pole.The fracture surfaces showed signs of post-fracture wear, indicating that the device remained implanted after the fracture event had occurred.Minimal wear was observed on spherical ring which did not appear to be entirely through the adlc coating as the lighter colored base material was not observed.The wear analysis portion of retrieval and analysis protocol ((b)(4)) was not conducted because the cause of failure was obvious, fracture of the mid-c component.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|