• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: MAKO SURGICAL CORP. 3.0 RIO® ROBOTIC ARM - MICS; STEREOTAXIC DEVICE, ROBOTICS

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

MAKO SURGICAL CORP. 3.0 RIO® ROBOTIC ARM - MICS; STEREOTAXIC DEVICE, ROBOTICS Back to Search Results
Catalog Number 209999
Device Problems Computer Software Problem (1112); Output Problem (3005)
Patient Problem No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
Event Date 02/04/2019
Event Type  malfunction  
Manufacturer Narrative
As part of the normal complaint follow-up, an evaluation of the event has been initiated by mako surgical.A supplemental report will be submitted when additional information becomes available.
 
Event Description
Event description: dr.(b)(6) hips are going in at incorrect version and inclination.I have uploaded two hips from 2-4-19 to the shared drive under the file ¿flint 2-4-19 hips.¿ i have post op xrays i can share as well.Thank you.This pi is being created to report the 2nd to 2 cases performed under the same robot, on the same day.Patient identifier l, see pi 2006753 referencing the complaint 1 of 2.Case type: tha.What is the estimated discrepancy mentioned in the complaint? tha (degrees) according to the patients post-op x-rays, it shows lee around 15 degrees off and vanveelen around 10 degrees off.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Follow-up #1 and final report submitted based on the results of investigation.Reported event: an event regarding inaccurate cup placement involving 3.0 rio robotic arm - mics, catalog: 209999 was reported.Method & results: device history review: a review of the dhr associated with rio 645 found quality inspection procedures successfully passed.Complaint history: based on the device identification ((b)(4)) the complaint databases were reviewed from 2011 to present for similar reported events regarding cup placement discrepancy.There were 21 other reported events ((b)(4)).Conclusion: there is no system malfunction detected.The surgeon did not pick their patient and ct landmarks in the same location.This leads to error in registration, which leads to the system calculating an incorrect inclination and version.The system behaved as intended.
 
Event Description
Event description: dr.(b)(6) hips are going in at incorrect version and inclination.I have uploaded two hips from (b)(6) 2019 to the shared drive under the file ¿flint (b)(6) 2019 hips.¿ i have post op xrays i can share as well.Thank you.This pi is being created to report the 2nd to 2 cases performed under the same robot, on the same day.Patient identifier l, see pi (b)(6) referencing the complaint 1 of 2.Case type: tha.What is the estimated discrepancy mentioned in the complaint? tha (degrees) according to the patients post-op x-rays, it shows (b)(6) around 15 degrees off and (b)(6) around 10 degrees off.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
3.0 RIO® ROBOTIC ARM - MICS
Type of Device
STEREOTAXIC DEVICE, ROBOTICS
Manufacturer (Section D)
MAKO SURGICAL CORP.
2555 davie road
fort lauderdale FL 33317
MDR Report Key8386491
MDR Text Key137836865
Report Number3005985723-2019-00190
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code OLO
UDI-Device Identifier00848486030407
UDI-Public00848486030407
Combination Product (y/n)N
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type company representative
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 07/11/2019
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received03/04/2019
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue Number209999
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received07/01/2019
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Hospitalization;
Patient Age85 YR
-
-