Skip to content

FlareHawk FHTAS106299SRecalls & reported problems

Integrity Implants Inc. · Shim, 10mm or 12mm x 29 mm, 6 degree, FH9 Sterile · Class 2 · Implant

All models of FlareHawk (29)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
1
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 1 adverse event report that list this exact device (DI 00810045530536), received between Jun 16, 2025 and Jun 16, 2025 — classified as 1 malfunction.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Malposition of Device” (1 report).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 1 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Malposition of Device1

Patient problems

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions1

Recent adverse event reports

The 1 most recent of 1 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionJun 16, 2025Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device

    DURING A SURGICAL CASE, VINCENT FRAZIER CONTACTED ME (HEATHER CAIN) INTRAOPERATIVELY TO REVIEW AN IMAGE OF AN IMPLANTED DEVICE AND TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE IMPLANT WAS PROPERLY LOCKED. UPON REVIEWING THE IMAGE, I NOTED THAT THE IMPLANT WAS NOT LOCKED AND APPEARED TO BE ROTATED. VINCENT COMMUNICATED THAT THE GUIDE PIN HAD BROKEN OFF DURING THE EXPANSION PHASE. I ADVISED THE TEAM TO ATTEMPT LOCKING THE IMPLANT. THE SURGEON PROCEEDED BY PLACING THE LOCK GAUGE INTO THE POSTERIOR ASPECT OF THE IMPLANT AND MALLETING THE BACK OF THE SHIM TO SECURE IT WITHIN THE SHELL. DESPITE THESE EFFORTS, SUBSEQUENT IMAGES CONFIRMED THAT THE IMPLANT REMAINED UNLOCKED. GIVEN THE ROTATION AND FAILURE TO LOCK, I RECOMMENDED REMOVING THE IMPLANT. THE SURGICAL TEAM WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EXTRACT THE SHIM USING THE SHIM REMOVAL TOOL. HOWEVER, THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE SAFER TO LEAVE THE SHELL IN PLACE AND NOT ATTEMPT REMOVAL. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SURGEON HAD SHAVED THE VERTEBRAL BODY DOWN TO 11 MM IN HEIGHT AND WAS ATTEMPTING TO PLACE A 10 MM IMPLANT. THERE WAS A 30 MINUTE DELAY. IT WAS REPORTED IN THE COMPLAINT AS YES THERE WAS IMPACT TO PATIENT BECAUSE OF THE 30 MINUTE DELAY BUT IN THE E

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 22216481 ↗

Other Intervertebral Fusion Device With Bone Graft, Lumbar devices

All Intervertebral Fusion Device With Bone Graft, Lumbar devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page