|
On (b)(6) 2025, surgical fusion technologies gmbh (sft) was notified by a u.S.Sales representative of a fixation failure, potentially involving the sf push-in anchor 2.3 implanted in an orthopedic soft-tissue fixation procedure.The reconstruction had reportedly become loose, as observed during clinical follow-up.At the time of the report, it was unclear whether the failure was attributable to the sft implant or the suture material, which was not supplied by sft.On (b)(6) 2025, the treating surgeon performed a revision surgery and confirmed intraoperatively that the sf push-in anchor 2.3 had dislodged from its original position.The explanted device was not retained and is therefore unavailable for return or analysis by the manufacturer.The surgeon noted that a suture tape (non-sft product) had been used in conjunction with the sf push-in anchor 2.3.As stated in the sft instructions for use (ifu) and the surgical technique, use of suture tape with this implant size is not indicated.Following the explanation of the sft device, a larger third-party anchor was implanted.This device also became dislodged post-operatively, as reported to sft on (b)(6) 2025.The surgeon attributed both implant failures to weak bone.Based on the clinical feedback and the absence of the returned device, sft was unable to conduct a product-specific root cause analysis.Based on our review of all currently available information, sft has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.
|
|
A patient previously implanted with the sf push-in anchor 2.3 underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2025 due to suspected fixation failure.Intraoperative findings indicated that the anchor had become dislodged.A larger, third-party implant was used to replace the original anchor.Subsequently, on (b)(6) 2025, surgical fusion technologies was notified that the replacement device also failed due to dislodgement.No adverse patient outcome beyond reoperation was reported.
|