|
An mdr is indicated for this complaint.It was reported that a patient was implanted with a pdc vivo device at c4-5 and two pdc sk devices at c5-6 and c6-7 on (b)(6) 2024.It was found that the vivo implant had migrated anteriorally, the sk implant at c5-6 was kyphotic, and the sk implant at c6-7 had migrated posteriorally and subsided.A second surgeon recommended removing all three levels and fusing c6-7, and converting c4-5 and c5-6 to pdc original.No additional information was provided and it is unknown if the patient received any additional surgical intervention.A review of the dhrs found no anomalies associated with the complaint.Complaint trending found that the rate of complaints is within the level outlined in the risk documentation.A review of the risk documentation found that the hazards associated with the complaint are identified and mitigated to a level where the clinical benefits outweigh the risks.A device evaluation could not be completed as the devices remain implanted within the patient.Imaging was provided that confirmed the implant migration and subsidence, and spinal kyphosis.There were no anomalies identified during the investigation related to the complaint.A reason for the migration, subsidence, and spinal kyphosis is unknown.The submission is 1 of 3 devices involved in this event.
|
|
A patient was implanted with a pdc vivo device at c4-5 and two pdc sk devices at c5-6 and c6-7 on (b)(6) 2024.It was found that the vivo implant had migrated anteriorally, the sk implant at c5-6 was kyphotic, and the sk implant at c6-7 had migrated posteriorally and subsided.A second surgeon recommended removing all three levels and fusing c6-7, and converting c4-5 and c5-6 to pdc original.No additional information was provided and it is unknown if the patient received any additional surgical intervention.
|