|
Images provided on (b)(6) 2026 depicts an implant that appears to have migrated posteriorly to the back edge of the vertebral body.Based on the image (one week post-op) the number of threads exposed on the device's expansion screw assembly were the same as the intra-op confirmation images taken on (b)(6) 2026.This suggests the implant maintained its height and did not collapse/malfunction.Image of explant also confirms the device was expanded.Dhr review concluded that the product was inspected and accepted for use and met all specified parameters of the quality inspection process (qip) with no associated nonconformance.The returned portion of the device was visually inspected, measured and functionally tested.The device was received in a disassembled state with damage to the peek tip.The remains of the device otherwise meets dimensional specifications, except for the damaged tip which may have been caused during removal.Unknown factors include: the exact date of the migration between follow-ups, patient activity at the time or prior to the event, the degree of spinal instability, or patient compliance with post-operative care instructions or if the patient sustained a fall/impact of any sort (no trauma/fall was reported.) these factors dictate the ongoing stability and placement of the implant.Root cause of the migration cannot be determined.Labeling review notes: "possible adverse effects".3.Loss of fixation (implant migration).
|