ProDisc PDL-M-SP11SRecalls & reported problems
Synthes (U.S.A.) LP · SUPERIOR END PLATE MEDIUM 11°-STERILE · Class 3 · Implant
All models of ProDisc (9)
Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 5
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 2
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 5 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10705034700182), received between May 2, 2018 and May 14, 2026 — classified as 2 injuries, 3 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Expulsion” (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 16, 2026.
Reports received per month
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Expulsion3
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem2
Patient problems
- No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions3
- Bone Fracture(s)1
- No Code Available1
- Pain1
Recent adverse event reports
The 5 most recent of 5 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
MalfunctionMay 14, 2026Expulsion
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PRODISC L DEVICE APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS AGO. THE PATIENT FOLLOWED UP WITH THE IMPLANTATION SURGEON AFTER EXPERIENCING INCREASED LOWER BACK PAIN WHILE SQUATTING. IMAGING WAS REVIEWED ON A PEER-TO-PEER DISCUSSION IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE POLY INLAY WAS EXPULSED OR EXPULSING. THE PATIENT IS ASYMPTOMATIC AND THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN ANCILLARY RADIOGRAPHIC FINDING. SURGEON WAS GOING TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE MEDICAL OR SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS WITH THE PATIENT. AT THIS TIME NO INTERVENTION HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 25171582 ↗MalfunctionMay 14, 2026Expulsion
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PRODISC L DEVICE APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS AGO. THE PATIENT FOLLOWED UP WITH THE IMPLANTATION SURGEON AFTER EXPERIENCING INCREASED LOWER BACK PAIN WHILE SQUATTING. IMAGING WAS REVIEWED ON A PEER-TO-PEER DISCUSSION IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE POLY INLAY WAS EXPULSED OR EXPULSING. THE PATIENT IS ASYMPTOMATIC AND THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN ANCILLARY RADIOGRAPHIC FINDING. SURGEON WAS GOING TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE MEDICAL OR SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS WITH THE PATIENT. AT THIS TIME NO INTERVENTION HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 25171495 ↗MalfunctionMay 14, 2026Expulsion
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PRODISC L DEVICE APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS AGO. THE PATIENT FOLLOWED UP WITH THE IMPLANTATION SURGEON AFTER EXPERIENCING INCREASED LOWER BACK PAIN WHILE SQUATTING. IMAGING WAS REVIEWED ON A PEER-TO-PEER DISCUSSION IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE POLY INLAY WAS EXPULSED OR EXPULSING. THE PATIENT IS ASYMPTOMATIC AND THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN ANCILLARY RADIOGRAPHIC FINDING. SURGEON WAS GOING TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE MEDICAL OR SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS WITH THE PATIENT. AT THIS TIME NO INTERVENTION HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 25171494 ↗InjuryJan 30, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PRODISC L IMPLANT AT L5-S1 ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT EXPERIENCED INSTABILITY AT THE LEVEL DUE TO A BILATERAL PARS FRACTURE. THE PDL IMPLANT WAS REMOVED AND THE PATIENT WAS FUSED ON (B)(6) 2025.
Patient problems: Bone Fracture(s)
MAUDE report 21273771 ↗InjuryMay 2, 2018Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A PRODISC-L REMOVAL AT L5-S1 ON (B)(6) 2018, DUE TO PAIN. THE PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH THE PRODISC-L ON AN UNKNOWN DATE APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) YEAR AGO AND THE ADJACENT LEVELS ARE FUSED WITH NON-SYNTHES DEVICES. NO OTHER LEVELS WERE OPERATED ON. THIS WAS NOT AN ADJACENT LEVEL CASE. THE REMOVAL WENT SMOOTHLY AND THE PRODISC APPEARED TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION AND FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED. IT WAS REMOVED EASILY AND A FUSION DEVICE WAS SUCCESSFULLY IMPLANTED. THE REVISION WAS DUE TO THE PATIENT'S CONTINUED BACK PAIN WHICH THE SURGEON BELIEVED WOULD BE RESOLVED THROUGH A FUSION. NO SURGICAL DELAY AND THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY. CONCOMITANT DEVICES REPORTED: UNKNOWN FUSION HARDWARE (PART # UNKNOWN, LOT # UNKNOWN, QUANTITY # UNKNOWN).
Patient problems: No Code Available; Pain
MAUDE report 7481874 ↗
Other PROSTHESIS, INTERVERTEBRAL DISC devices
- Prodisc C SK PDSM5Centinel Spine, LLC · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc2 recalls4 reports
- Simplify® Cervical Artificial DiscNuvasive, Inc. · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall12 reports
- Prodisc C 09.820.055SCentinel Spine, LLC · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall9 reports
- Simplify® Cervical Artificial DiscNuvasive, Inc. · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall4 reports
- Prodisc C SK PDSXL5Centinel Spine, LLC · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall3 reports
- Simplify® Cervical Artificial DiscNuvasive, Inc. · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall3 reports
- Simplify® Cervical Artificial DiscNuvasive, Inc. · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall3 reports
- Simplify® Cervical Artificial DiscNuvasive, Inc. · Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 recall3 reports
Sources and updates
- Device record: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026 · View this device in AccessGUDID ↗
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026 · each report above links to its original FDA record
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 16, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page