| Model Number |
PDSL5 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hypersensitivity/Allergic reaction (1907)
|
| Date of Event |
01/23/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was implanted with a prodisc c sk device at c5-6 on (b)(6) 2023.The tdr level was reported as being hyper mobile and causing pain, surgeon stated that the patient seemed to never quite heal and that the implant seemed loose upon removal.The surgeon removed the sk implant and fused the patient on (b)(6) 2025.Surgeon sent the patient for serological allergy screening post removal and fusion to rule out any unreported metal allergies and the results confirmed that the patient has a previously undiagnosed low grade nickel allergy which the surgeon believes caused the need to explant the sk.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
An mdr is indicated for this complaint.It was reported that a patient was implanted with a prodisc c sk device at c5-6 on (b)(6) 2023.The tdr level was reported as being hyper mobile and causing pain, surgeon stated that the patient seemed to never quite heal and that the implant seemed loose upon removal.The surgeon removed the sk implant and fused the patient on (b)(6) 2025.Surgeon sent the patient for serological allergy screening post removal and fusion to rule out any unreported metal allergies and the results confirmed that the patient has a previously undiagnosed low grade nickel allergy which the surgeon believes caused the need to explant the sk.A review of the dhr 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 harms.There are no previous issues or capas associated with the complaint.A device evaluation could not be completed as the implant was not returned following the removal surgery and no imaging was provided.The surgeon did confirm that the patient had a previously undiagnosed low grade nickel allergy.The removal was due to the patient's nickel allergy.The submission is 1 of 1 devices involved in this event.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|