Modulus 67940002P2Recalls & reported problems

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 3 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00887517959003), received between Aug 1, 2023 and May 9, 2025 — classified as 3 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Migration” (2 reports).

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. How this data works · Data updated Oct 13, 2026.

Most reported problems

Recent adverse event reports

The 3 most recent of 3 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

• MalfunctionMay 9, 2025Migration or Expulsion of Device; Migration or Expulsion of Device

  THE PATIENT HAS PRIMARY SURGERY TO INSERT MODULUS CERVICAL CAGE INTO C6/C7 ON (B)(6) 2025 BECAUSE OF KYPHOSIS, CERVICAL HERNIA. AFTER THE SURGERY, THE CAGE BACKED OUT ABOUT HALFWAY FROM THE INTERVERTEBRAL SPACE. ON (B)(6) 2025 THE SURGEON REINSERTED THE CAGE AND FIXED THE VERTEBRAL BODY WITH A PLATE FROM ANOTHER MANUFACTURER. THE SURGEON SAID THAT THE PATIENT HAD A KYPHOSIS, AND THE WEIGHT ON THE FRONT OF THE VERTEBRAL BODY WAS TOO STRONG, WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CAGE TO BACK OUT. HE THINKS IT MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER TO HAVE PLACED IT A LITTLE FURTHER BACK FROM THE BEGINNING. AND THERE WAS NO EXTERNAL FIXATION AFTER THE SURGERY, SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CAGE. WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OTHER ADVERSE PATIENT CONSEQUENCES REPORTED.

  Patient problems: Failure of Implant

  MAUDE report 21994027 ↗
• MalfunctionAug 2, 2023Migration; Migration

  THIS COMPLAINT WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT (B)(4). ON A (B)(6) 2021 A PATIENT UNDERWENT AN ANTERIOR CERVICAL PROCEDURE FROM C5 TO C7. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON A (B)(6) 2022 DATE IT WAS DISCOVERED DURING A POST-OP FOLLOW UP X-RAY NOTED INFERIOR/SUPERIOR SUBSIDENCE OF THE INTERBODY¿S AT C5-6 AND C6-7 AS WELL AS THE IDENTIFIED PSEUDOARTHROSIS (RADIOLUCENCY) AT THE SCREW TO BONE INTERFACE AT C5, C6 AND C7. THE PATIENT WAS EXPERIENCING NO ADVERSE EFFECTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ISSUE AND NO REVISION IS PLANNED. 2 OF 2.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 17440182 ↗
• MalfunctionAug 1, 2023Migration; Migration

  THIS COMPLAINT WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT (B)(4). ON A (B)(6)2021 A PATIENT UNDERWENT AN ANTERIOR CERVICAL PROCEDURE FROM C5 TO C7. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON A (B)(6)2022 DATE IT WAS DISCOVERED DURING A POST-OP FOLLOW UP X-RAY NOTED INFERIOR/SUPERIOR SUBSIDENCE OF THE INTERBODY¿S AT C5-6 AND C6-7 AS WELL AS THE IDENTIFIED PSEUDOARTHROSIS (RADIOLUCENCY) AT THE SCREW TO BONE INTERFACE AT C5, C6 AND C7. THE PATIENT WAS EXPERIENCING NO ADVERSE EFFECTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ISSUE AND NO REVISION IS PLANNED.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 17438922 ↗