Skip to content

Mectalif Posterior Cages 03.27.115Recalls & reported problems

Medacta International SA · Posterior Interbody Fusion Device PEEK/Ti 9x22x12 L5° · Class 2 · Implant

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

Adverse event reports
3
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
3
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 3 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 07630040719452), received between Dec 18, 2020 and Nov 26, 2025 — classified as 3 injuries.

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: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 1 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

  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
  • Malposition of Device1
  • Migration1

Patient problems

  • Inadequate Osseointegration1
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions1
  • Pain1

Recent adverse event reports

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

  • InjuryNov 26, 2025Migration; Migration

    REVISION SURGERY DUE TOBACK-OUT OF THE CAGE (REF:03.27.115) AT 6 MONTHS FROM THE PRIMARY (CAGES WERE INSERTED BETWEEN L5-S1). THE CAGES WERE REPLACED WITH THE OTHER COMPETITOR&SIZE39, S CAGES. THE FIXATION RANGE WAS EXTENDED FROM L4-S TO L4-S2AI. UNILATERALAPPROACH WAS USED FOR CAGE INSERTION, ANDTHE PATIENT’ S BONE QUALITY WAS REPORTED TO BE COARSE.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 23655153 ↗
  • InjuryJul 1, 2021Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING PAIN AND POST-OP X-RAYS INDICATED THAT THE CAGES HAD EJECTED POSTERIORLY. THE PATIENT WILL BE REVISED AND THE DATE OF THE REVISION IS UNKNOWN. NO MORE INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration

    MAUDE report 12098252 ↗
  • InjuryDec 18, 2020Malposition of Device

    THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING PAIN AND THE CAUSE OF THE PAIN IS UNKNOWN. POST-OP X-RAYS INDICATED THAT CAGES EJECTED INTO THE CANAL AFTER THE PRIMARY SURGERY. THE SURGEON REMOVED THE CAGES 28 DAYS AFTER PRIMARY AND DID NOT PUT ANY IMPLANTS IN TO REPLACE THEM. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PATIENT GOT INTO A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION IN POST-OP CARE. THIS IS MOST LIKELY THE REASON WHY THE CAGES ENDED UP FREE FLOATING. THE AGENT THINKS THE SURGEON MAY HAVE PUT BONE GRAFT IN PLACE BUT IS NOT 100% CERTAIN.

    Patient problems: Pain

    MAUDE report 11037512 ↗

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