Skip to content

GMK Sphere Total Knee System 02.12.0006RRecalls & reported problems

Medacta International SA · Femur Sphere cemented Right, size 6 · Class 2 · Implant

All models of GMK Sphere Total Knee System (209)

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

Adverse event reports
8
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
8
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 8 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 07630030825880), received between Oct 24, 2018 and Jun 9, 2026 — classified as 8 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Appears to Trigger Rejection” (3 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. 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: 1 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 1 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 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: 1 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

  • Device Appears to Trigger Rejection3
  • Unstable3
  • Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth2
  • Appropriate Device Problem Term/Code Not Available1
  • Loose or Intermittent Connection1

Patient problems

  • Medical device site infection3
  • Joint Disorder1
  • Joint Laxity1
  • No Code Available1
  • No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient1
  • Pain1

Recent adverse event reports

The 8 most recent of 8 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJun 9, 2026Device Appears to Trigger Rejection

    AT ABOUT 5 YEARS 1 MONTH AFTER THE PRIMARY, THE PATIENT CAME IN DUE TO SIGNS OF INFECTION AND THE PATHOGEN IS UNKNOWN. THE SURGEON REMOVED ALL MEDACTA IMPLANTS AND IMPLANTED ANTIBIOTIC SPACERS. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: Medical device site infection

    MAUDE report 25442545 ↗
  • InjuryMar 3, 2025Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection

    AT 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS FROM MEDACTA PRIMARY SURGERY, THE PATIENT CAME IN DUE TO SIGNS OF INFECTION AND THE PATHOGEN IS UNKNOWN. THE SURGEON REMOVED ALL MEDACTA HARDWARE AND IMPLANTED AN ANTIBIOTIC SPACER. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: Medical device site infection

    MAUDE report 21503937 ↗
  • InjuryOct 15, 2024Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection

    FIRST STAGE KNEE REVISION FOR INFECTION AT ABOUT 10 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS POST PRIMARY. ALL IMPLANTS WERE REMOVED AND WASHOUT WAS PERFORMED. A COMPETITOR SPACER WAS IMPLANTED AS THE JOINT WAS INFECTED. AFTER A CHECK OF THE AGENT WITH THE HOSPITAL, NO FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE REGARDING THE 2ND STAGE REVISION OR THE PATIENT.

    Patient problems: Medical device site infection

    MAUDE report 20448872 ↗
  • InjurySep 23, 2022Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    REVISION SURGERY AT ABOUT 2 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS POST PRIMARY FOR FEMUR AND TIBIA LOOSENING. ALL THE DEVICES HAVE BEEN REVISED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: Pain

    MAUDE report 15473602 ↗
  • InjuryJun 18, 2021Unstable

    THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING MID-FLEXION INSTABILITY 1 YEAR AND 9 MONTHS AFTER THE PRIMARY SURGERY. THE SURGEON REVISED ALL IMPLANTS AND CONVERTED THE PATIENT FROM A SPHERE KNEE TO A HINGE KNEE. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: Joint Laxity

    MAUDE report 12024588 ↗
  • InjuryAug 26, 2020Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth; Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth

    THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING INSTABILITY DUE TO A LOOSE TIBIA AND FEMUR. THE SURGEON OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO CEMENT PRESENT ON THE IMPLANTS. THE SURGEON REVISED THE FEMUR, TIBIA, AND INSERT 7 YEARS AND 1 MONTH AFTER PRIMARY. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient

    MAUDE report 10453190 ↗
  • InjuryJun 24, 2020Loose or Intermittent Connection; Unstable; Appropriate Device Problem Term/Code Not Available

    THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING INSTABILITY DUE TO A LOOSE FEMORAL COMPONENT. THE SURGEON REVISED ALL IMPLANTS AND CONVERTED THE GMK SPHERE KNEE TO A GMK HINGE KNEE 1 YEAR AND 11 MONTHS AFTER PRIMARY. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: Joint Disorder

    MAUDE report 10188722 ↗
  • InjuryOct 24, 2018Unstable

    CEMENT DIDN'T ADHERE TO IMPLANTS. THE TYPE OF CEMENT USED IS PALACOS R. ADDITIONAL COMMENT PERFORMED BY SURGEON: APPARENTLY A SURGEON HAS REVISED TWO OTHER PATIENTS OF MINE OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO THAT WERE BOTH MEDACTA KNEES. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES THERE WAS NO ADHERENCE OF CEMENT TO THE METAL COMPONENTS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, ONE OF THE KNEES WAS REVISED BECAUSE OF MID FLEXION INSTABILITY AND THE OTHER ONE HAD INCOMPETENCE OF THE MEDIAL COLLATERAL LIGAMENT.

    Patient problems: No Code Available

    MAUDE report 7999378 ↗

Other Prosthesis, Knee, Patellofemorotibial, Semi-Constrained, Cemented, Polymer/Metal/Polymer devices

All Prosthesis, Knee, Patellofemorotibial, Semi-Constrained, Cemented, Polymer/Metal/Polymer devices →

Sources and updates

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