|
Implant migration is listed in the device instructions for use (ifu) and in the procedural technique guide as known possible adverse effects associated with use of the system.Revision surgery was successful in resolving the migrated middle member.The luna implant's middle member was removed without incident.Physician decided to leave the two outer implant members in place as they were starting to fuse.Hospital retained the removed middle member and lock screw.Although the device was not returned, a review of the available imaging and photos was done.A definitive root cause for this device failure could not be determined.However, based on the imaging, the following intraoperative factors may have played a role: device not adequately locked, device positioned too posteriorly, and a possible fracture, lesion, or infection indicated by a lucency in the l5 vertebral body.A review of the lot history record confirmed no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have caused or contributed to this event.Based on review of the information provided, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.No additional information was provided.Mdr filed based on possibility of serious injury for the migration of implant if it were to reoccur.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2017, the company became aware of a revision surgery scheduled, where a physician was to remove a luna implant that had migrated posteriorly.Based on the imaging, the implant was in the spinal canal.The patient was asymptomatic and physician called it an incidental finding.Revision surgery scheduled for (b)(6) 2017.The revision surgery was uneventful and the physician only removed the middle member which was protruding into the spinal canal.As indicated by physician the outer implant members were starting to fuse and ultimately decided to leave them implanted.No other complications or post-operation issues were mentioned.
|