Skip to content

EXETER 0939-0-116Recalls & reported problems

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. · 2.5 I M PLUG · Class 2 · Implant

All models of EXETER (36)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
2
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 2 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 04546540167248), received between Jan 30, 2017 and Jan 30, 2017 — classified as 2 malfunctions.

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

2 other recalls cover devices cleared under the same FDA submission (K173499, K191414, K980843); they may or may not involve this specific model.

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 16, 2026.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Break2
  • Fracture2
  • Material Integrity Problem2

Patient problems

  • No Information2
  • No Consequences Or Impact To Patient1

Recent adverse event reports

The 2 most recent of 2 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionJan 30, 2017Break; Fracture; Material Integrity Problem; Break; Fracture; Material Integrity Problem

    STRYKER SALES REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT 2 CEMENT RESTRICTORS BROKE DURING INSERTION. THE FIRST TIME THE RESTRICTOR SPLIT, THE SURGEON HAD TO MANUALLY REMOVE EACH OF THE PIECES. THESE WERE SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT. THE SECOND TIME, ON ADVICE FROM SENIOR SURGEON, HE OPTED TO LEAVE THE RESTRICTOR IN. THE TOP BROKE OFF THIS PARTICULAR ONE BUT IT WAS SO WELL FIXED IT WAS PROVING DIFFICULT TO REMOVE. TWO DIFFERENT INTRODUCERS WERE USED. THESE HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT ISSUE IN PREVIOUS SURGERIES.

    Patient problems: No Information

    MAUDE report 6287305 ↗
  • MalfunctionJan 30, 2017Break; Fracture; Material Integrity Problem; Break; Fracture; Material Integrity Problem

    THE STRYKER SALES REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT 2 CEMENT RESTRICTORS BROKE DURING INSERTION. THE FIRST TIME THE RESTRICTOR SPLIT, THE SURGEON HAD TO MANUALLY REMOVE EACH OF THE PIECES. THESE WERE SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT. THE SECOND TIME, ON ADVICE FROM SENIOR SURGEON, HE OPTED TO LEAVE THE RESTRICTOR IN. THE TOP BROKE OFF THIS PARTICULAR ONE BUT IT WAS SO WELL FIXED IT WAS PROVING DIFFICULT TO REMOVE. TWO DIFFERENT INTRODUCERS WERE USED. THESE HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT ISSUE IN PREVIOUS SURGERIES

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient; No Information

    MAUDE report 6287297 ↗

Recalls under the same FDA submission

These recalls involve devices cleared under K173499, K191414, K980843. One submission often covers many models, so check the product and lot details in each record.

  • Z-0313-2022 · Oct 15, 2021 · Open, Classified
    28MM -4 LFIT V40 HEAD, Catalog Number 6260-9-028
  • Z-0314-2022 · Oct 15, 2021 · Open, Classified
    28MM -4 LFIT V40 HEAD, Catalog Number 6260-9-122

Other CEMENT OBTURATOR devices

All CEMENT OBTURATOR devices →

Sources and updates

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