2530088-2013-00230
Report
- Report Number
- 2530088-2013-00230
- Event Type
- Injury
- Date Received
- May 3, 2013
- Date of Event
- January 24, 2013
- Report Date
- January 31, 2013
- Manufacturer
- SYNTHES BRANDYWINE
- Product Code
- MJO
- Adverse Event
- Yes
- Report Source
- Manufacturer report
- Reporter Location
- NY, US
- Reporter Occupation
- OTHER
Narratives
THIS DEVICE IS USED FOR TREATMENT NOT DIAGNOSIS. INVESTIGATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED, NO CONCLUSION COULD BE DRAWN AS NO DEVICE WAS RETURNED AND NO LOT NUMBER WAS PROVIDED. MANUFACTURING RECORDS COULD NOT BE REVIEWED WITHOUT A LOT NUMBER.
THE DEVICE IS USED FOR TREATMENT, NOT DIAGNOSIS. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM QUESTIONNAIRE, DATE OF EVENT: (B)(6) 2013. IMPLANTED: FROM (B)(6) 2011 TO (B)(6) 2010. CONCOMITANT PRODUCT: 2 NON-SYNTHES PEDICLE SCREWS MFR UNKNOWN.
THE DEVICE IS USED FOR TREATMENT, NOT DIAGNOSIS. DATE RECEIVED BY MANUFACTURE 9/16/2013. THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EVENT EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT THE RETURN OF THE DEVICE. CONCLUSION IS THIS EVALUATION IS IN REGARDS TO THE CONTINUED PAIN RESULTING FROM THE PRODISC-L DEVICE PRIOR TO PEDICAL SCREW FAILURE. UNRELIEVED PAIN IS AN INHERENT RISK WITH BOTH FUSION AND NON-FUSION DEVICES, AND IS OFTEN RELATED TO PROPER PATIENT SELECTION. BACK AND LOWER EXTREMITY PAIN EITHER SINGULARLY OR IN COMBINATION IS CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS FOR PRO-DISC L, AND THE OVERALL RATE OF OCCURRENCE REPORTED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLINICAL HISTORY TO DATE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE EXACT ROOT CAUSE OF THE CONTINUED PAIN.
PATIENT PRESENTED LOWER LEFT LEG PAIN, LOW BACK PAIN AND INSTABILITY AND THE PRODISC LUMBAR WAS IMPLANTED ON (B)(6) 2010. POST OPERATIVELY THE PATIENT STILL PRESENTED THE SAME PAIN AND INSTABILITY, THE SURGEON ADDED COMPETITOR POSTERIOR PEDICLE SCREWS, IMPLANT DATE UNKNOWN. THE PAIN AND INSTABILITY TEMPORARILY SUBSIDED. X-RAY FILMS TAKEN ON AN UNKNOWN DATE SHOWED THAT THE TWO PEDICLE SCREWS HAD BROKEN SO A REVISION WAS NEEDED. THE SURGEON DECIDED NOT TO REMOVE THE PRODISC LUMBAR ANTERIORLY BUT FOR CLINICAL REASONS REMOVED THE IMPLANT LATERALLY RATHER THAN ANTERIORLY, WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT THE POLY INLAY. A HEMI-CORPECTOMY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE THE IMPLANT. AN EXPANDABLE CAGE WAS PLACED AND TWO DAYS LATER WAS BACKED UP WITH 2 POSTERIOR PEDICLE SCREWS. THIS IS REPORT NUMBER 1 OF 3 FOR COMPLAINT #(B)(4).
Devices
| Seq | Brand | Generic | Product Code | Manufacturer | Model | Lot | UDI-DI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 194291 | MJO | SYNTHES BRANDYWINE |
Patients
| Seq | Age | Sex | Outcome | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 34 YR | Required Intervention | 2 NON-SYNTHES PEDICLE SCREWS MFR UNKNOWN |