AVS Anchor-CRecalls & reported problems across all models

We found 10 models of AVS Anchor-C by Stryker Corporation in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 36 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Mar 1, 2016 and Jan 17, 2024 — classified as 7 injuries, 29 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (12 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. Widely used products collect more reports, so totals can't be used to compare products or estimate failure rates. Only reports that name a model's exact device identifier are counted. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works

Most reported AVS Anchor-C problems

AVS Anchor-C models

10 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.

• AVS Anchor-C 48335310

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  15 reports
• AVS Anchor-C 48335312

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  10 reports
• AVS Anchor-C 48328006

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  2 reports
• AVS Anchor-C 48321074

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  2 reports
• AVS Anchor-C 48335308

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  2 reports
• AVS Anchor-C 48328007

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  1 report
• AVS Anchor-C 48321064

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  1 report
• AVS Anchor-C 48325310

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  1 report
• AVS Anchor-C 48325314

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  1 report
• AVS Anchor-C 48335410

  Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, cervical
  1 report

Recent AVS Anchor-C adverse event reports

The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

• InjuryJan 17, 2024Migration; Migration

  A PATIENT WAS REVISED TO ADDRESS THE MIGRATION OF AN AVS ANCHOR C SELF-DRILLING SCREW AT C5 APPROXIMATELY TWO MONTHS AFTER IMPLANTATION.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 18526336 ↗
• MalfunctionJul 27, 2022Fracture; Fracture

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT WHEN PLACING TWO AVS ANCHOR-C SELF-DRILLING SCREW THROUGH THE GUIDE INSERTER INTO THE IMPLANT THE LOCKING RINGS POPPED OFF INTRA-OPERATIVELY. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY. NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, SURGICAL DELAY OR MEDICAL INTERVENTION WERE REPORTED. THIS REPORT CAPTURES THE FIRST SCREW.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 15117308 ↗
• MalfunctionJul 27, 2022Fracture; Fracture

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT WHEN PLACING TWO AVS ANCHOR-C SELF-DRILLING SCREW THROUGH THE GUIDE INSERTER INTO THE IMPLANT THE LOCKING RINGS POPPED OFF INTRA-OPERATIVELY. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY. NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, SURGICAL DELAY OR MEDICAL INTERVENTION WERE REPORTED. THIS REPORT CAPTURES THE SECOND SCREW.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 15117273 ↗
• MalfunctionMay 18, 2021Fracture; Positioning Problem; Fracture; Positioning Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE ANCHOR C SELF DRILLING BONE SCREW 'DID NOT FIT IN PROPER POSITION' INTRA-OPERATIVELY. NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, SURGICAL DELAY OR MEDICAL INTERVENTION WERE REPORTED. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 11843068 ↗
• MalfunctionMay 12, 2021Fracture; Fracture

  A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT THE C-RING OF AN ANCHOR C SCREW DETACHED DURING INSERTION. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY WITH A FIVE-MINUTE SURGICAL DELAY AND NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE TO THE PATIENT.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 11814345 ↗
• InjuryMar 16, 2021Migration; Migration

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT AN ANCHOR C SELF DRILLING SCREW AT C5 BACKED OUT OF A CAGE POST-OPERATIVELY. REVISION SURGERY HAS OCCURRED WHERE THE SCREW WAS REPLACED AND THE CAGE WAS RE-IMPLANTED.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 11499194 ↗
• MalfunctionJul 14, 2020Migration; Migration

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT AN ACHOR C SELF DRILLING SCREW MIGRATED POST-OPERATIVELY. IT WAS NOTICED VIA X-RAY THAT THE SCREW BEGAN TO BACK OUT APPROXIMATELY 1 MONTH POST-OPERATIVELY. THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR REVISION SURGERY AT THIS TIME.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions; No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

  MAUDE report 10270879 ↗
• InjuryMay 6, 2020Migration; Migration

  PHYSICIAN DISCOVERED VIA X-RAY THAT AN ANCHOR-C SELF DRILLING BONE SCREW BACKED OUT 6-MONTHS POST-OPERATIVELY. FUSION WAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED. REVISION SURGERY HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND THE SCREW HAS BEEN REMOVED.

  Patient problems: Injury

  MAUDE report 10028577 ↗
• MalfunctionMay 8, 2018Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Device Operates Differently Than Expected; Positioning Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING SURGERY, AN X-RAY INDICATED THAT THE SCREW ADVANCED BEYOND THE IMPLANT. THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCT (2 SCREWS, 1 CAGE) WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A CAGE AND A PLATE. UPON REMOVAL THE CAGE CAME APART. ALL FRAGMENTS WERE RETRIEVED. THERE WAS A REPORTED 20 MINUTE SURGICAL DELAY. NO REPORTS OF ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PATIENT.

  Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient; No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient

  MAUDE report 7493379 ↗
• MalfunctionMay 8, 2018Malposition of Device; Break; Material Separation; Malposition of Device

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING SURGERY, AN X-RAY INDICATED THAT THE SCREW ADVANCED BEYOND THE IMPLANT. THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCT (2 SCREWS, 1 CAGE) WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A CAGE AND A PLATE. UPON REMOVAL THE CAGE CAME APART. ALL FRAGMENTS WERE RETRIEVED. THERE WAS A REPORTED 20 MINUTE SURGICAL DELAY. NO REPORTS OF ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PATIENT.

  Patient problems: No Code Available; No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient

  MAUDE report 7493377 ↗
• InjuryApr 30, 2018Unintended Movement; Device Slipped; Unintended Movement

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT ONE MONTH POST OPERATION, A FILM SHOWED THAT A SCREW BACKED OUT. THERE WERE NO ISSUES DURING THE FOUR LEVEL FUSION CASE AND THE SURGEON WAS ABLE TO SEAT THE SCREW PAST THE BLACK RING AROUND THE SCREWDRIVER INTO THE CAGE INSERTER. UPON FOLLOW UP WITH THE SURGEON, THE PATIENT IS DOING WELL.

  Patient problems: Injury; No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient

  MAUDE report 7474269 ↗
• InjuryApr 13, 2018Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  THE PATIENT CALLED IN TO REPORT THAT SINCE CERVICAL SURGERY IN (B)(6) 2015, HE'S HAD PRESSURE IN HIS THROAT AND NO RELIEF, NECK PAIN, HEADACHES THAT CAN AND DO BECOME VERY SEVERE, POPPING AND SHIFTING FEELING IN NECK, RIPPING- GRINDING- FEELING WHEN TURNING HEAD, LOSS OF MENTAL ALERTNESS, PAIN IN THROAT THAT PROJECTS TO MY STOMACH, AND LIST OF OTHERS. AT THIS TIME THE PATIENT HAD NOT HAD ADDITIONAL SURGERY.

  Patient problems: Discomfort; Dizziness; Headache; Nausea; Pain

  MAUDE report 7430803 ↗
• MalfunctionApr 2, 2018Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE LOCKING RING ON THE SCREW DISENGAGED UPON INSERTION. THE AFFECTED SCREW WAS REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE, WITH A 5 MINUTE SURGICAL DELAY. THERE ARE NO REPORTS OF ADVERSE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES TO THE PATIENT.

  Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient

  MAUDE report 7390578 ↗
• MalfunctionDec 27, 2017Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Device Or Device Fragments Location Unknown; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT; THE SURGEON WAS UNDERTAKING AN ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION WITH THE INTENTION OF IMPLANTING A CAGE AND SCREWS. THE CLINICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST WAS IN THE CASE. THE SURGEON IMPLANTED THE CAGE AND SCREWS AND THEN DECIDED TO MOVE ONE OF THE SCREWS. AT THIS POINT NO X-RAY WAS BEING USED. THE SURGEON THOUGHT HE HAD TAKEN THE SCREW OUT AND HANDED THE SCREWDRIVER BACK TO THE SCRUB NURSE. THE NURSE STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCREW AND THE SURGEON SUGGESTED THAT HE / THE SCRUB TEAM LOOK FOR THE SCREW. NOT REALISING THAT THE FIRST SCREW WAS STILL IN SITU, THE SURGEON THEN ATTEMPTED TO INSERT A DIFFERENT SCREW AND FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO INSERT. THE SURGEON SAID THAT THE SCREW WAS DIFFICULT TO INSERT AND ASKED IF THERE WAS A TOOL THAT COULD HELP. THE CLINICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST, ALSO UNAWARE THAT THE SCREW WAS STILL IMPLANTED, SUGGESTED THAT A SHARP SHOOTER, AWL OR DRILL COULD POTENTIALLY HELP.THE SURGEON THEN USED AN AWL AND A HAMMER TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR THE SECOND SCREW. HOWEVER, THIS ADVANCED THE FIRST SCREW PAST THE POINT ON THE CAGE WHERE IT SHOULD STOP. HE THEN USED A DRILL WHICH ADVANCED THE SCREW FURTHER. HE THEN PUT IN A SECOND SCREW WHICH PUSH

  Patient problems: Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque; Spinal Cord Injury

  MAUDE report 7147504 ↗
• InjuryDec 27, 2017Difficult to Insert; Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT; THE SURGEON WAS UNDERTAKING AN ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION WITH THE INTENTION OF IMPLANTING A CAGE AND SCREWS. THE CLINICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST WAS IN THE CASE. THE SURGEON IMPLANTED THE CAGE AND SCREWS AND THEN DECIDED TO MOVE ONE OF THE SCREWS. AT THIS POINT NO X-RAY WAS BEING USED. THE SURGEON THOUGHT HE HAD TAKEN THE SCREW OUT AND HANDED THE SCREWDRIVER BACK TO THE SCRUB NURSE. THE NURSE STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCREW AND THE SURGEON SUGGESTED THAT HE / THE SCRUB TEAM LOOK FOR THE SCREW. NOT REALISING THAT THE FIRST SCREW WAS STILL IN SITU, THE SURGEON THEN ATTEMPTED TO INSERT A DIFFERENT SCREW AND FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO INSERT. THE SURGEON SAID THAT THE SCREW WAS DIFFICULT TO INSERT AND ASKED IF THERE WAS A TOOL THAT COULD HELP. THE CLINICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST, ALSO UNAWARE THAT THE SCREW WAS STILL IMPLANTED, SUGGESTED THAT A SHARP SHOOTER, AWL OR DRILL COULD POTENTIALLY HELP. THE SURGEON THEN USED AN AWL AND A HAMMER TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR THE SECOND SCREW. HOWEVER, THIS ADVANCED THE FIRST SCREW PAST THE POINT ON THE CAGE WHERE IT SHOULD STOP. HE THEN USED A DRILL WHICH ADVANCED THE SCREW FURTHER. HE THEN PUT IN A SECOND SCREW WHICH PUS

  Patient problems: Spinal Cord Injury; Weakness

  MAUDE report 7147469 ↗

Other Stryker Corporation products

• RemB7 models · 3,073 reports
• Prime Series21 models · 1,548 reports · 2 recalls
• TARGET114 models · 1,077 reports
• ProCuity17 models · 368 reports · 13 recalls
• Spetzler-Malis20 models · 7 reports · 19 recalls
• SYNCHRO 28 models · 313 reports · 9 recalls
• Neptune E-SEP19 models · 412 reports · 7 recalls
• StrykeFlow4 models · 552 reports · 4 recalls