|
An mdr is indicated for this complaint.It was reported that a patient (58yo, female) was implanted with a pdc device at c6-7 on (b)(6) 2025.Patient had previously had an acdf at level c5-6, completed in 2005.Patient had initial symptom relief but then was experiencing worsening pain.It was found that the patient had a c7 fragility fracture, and pdc device subsidence with kyphosis and anterior migration.The pdc device was removed on (b)(6) 2026 and the patient an acdf peek interbody with plate and screws.A dhr review 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.The implant was returned for device evaluation and will be evaluated using exponent's approved prodisc c evaluation protocol.The report will be issued under (b)(4).Additionally, imaging was provided that showed the subsided implant.There were no anomalies identified during the complaint investigation.The removal was completed due to implant subsidence, kyphosis, and anterior migration.This report is for 1 of 1 devices involved in this event.
|
|
A patient (58yo, female) was implanted with a pdc device at c6-7 on (b)(6) 2025.Patient had previously had an acdf at level c5-6, completed in 2005.Patient had initial symptom relief but then was experiencing worsening pain.It was found that the patient had a c7 fragility fracture, and pdc device subsidence with kyphosis and anterior migration.The pdc device was removed on (b)(6) 2026 and the patient an acdf peek interbody with plate and screws.
|