iFuse TORQ Implant SystemRecalls & reported problems across all models
Si-Bone Inc. · 9 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
1 open recall names at least one iFuse TORQ Implant System model. Check whether yours is affected in the recall details, and contact the manufacturer or your healthcare provider.
- Adverse event reports
- 6
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 6
- Recalls
- 1
We found 9 models of iFuse TORQ Implant System by Si-Bone Inc. in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 6 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Oct 21, 2021 and Jan 5, 2022 — classified as 6 injuries.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Malposition of Device” (4 reports).
1 FDA recall record name at least one of these models by its device identifier, 1 still open.
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
iFuse TORQ Implant System recalls
FDA recall records that name at least one of these models by its device identifier, newest first. Each recall usually covers specific models or lots, so check the details.
- Aug 21, 2026Open, Classified
The pelvic fixation screws failed to meet acceptance criteria for tube packaging seal integrity testing; therefore, sterility assurance cannot be ensured.
Z-0146-2027 · Root cause: Packaging · names 5 of these models · Recall details · FDA record ↗
Most reported iFuse TORQ Implant System problems
Device problems
- Malposition of Device4
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
- Loss of Osseointegration1
Patient problems
- Undesired Nerve Stimulation4
- Arthralgia1
- Cellulitis1
iFuse TORQ Implant System models
9 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10060TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 recall1 report
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10065TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 recall1 report
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10055TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 recall0 reports
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10080TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 recall0 reports
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 11580TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 recall0 reports
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10045TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 report
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10090TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 report
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 10090LGSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 report
- iFuse TORQ Implant System 11555TSacroiliac Joint Fixation1 report
Recent iFuse TORQ Implant System adverse event reports
The 6 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryJan 5, 2022Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device
THE PATIENT HAD BILATERAL SI JOINT ARTHRODESIS IN (B)(6) 2021 WHERE TWO SCREW TYPE IMPLANTS WERE INSTALLED ON EACH SIDE. THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF LEFT SIDE RADICULAR PAIN FOLLOWING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE LEFT SIDE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS IMPINGING ON THE NEUROFORAMEN CAUSING RADICULAR PAIN. ONE WEEK AFTER THE INITIAL PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION PROCEDURE WHERE THE LEFT SIDE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A SHORTER IMPLANT OF THE SAME TYPE. NO OTHER PREEXISTING IMPLANTS WERE ADJUSTED OR REMOVED. THE PATIENT'S PAIN SYMPTOMS RESOLVED FOLLOWING THE REVISION PROCEDURE.
Patient problems: Undesired Nerve Stimulation
MAUDE report 13173026 ↗InjuryDec 21, 2021Loss of Osseointegration; Loss of Osseointegration
THE PATIENT WITH PELVIC TRAUMA INJURY HAD LEFT SIDE SI JOINT ARTHRODESIS IN (B)(6) 2021 WHERE ONE IMPLANT WAS INSTALLED. LATER THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE IMPLANT WAS LOOSE. IN (B)(6) 2021, SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION PROCEDURE WHERE THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED. THE STATUS OF THE PATIENT FOLLOWING THE REVISION PROCEDURE IS NOT KNOWN.
Patient problems: Arthralgia
MAUDE report 13056500 ↗InjuryNov 23, 2021Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE SI JOINT IMPLANTS OR THE PLACEMENT OF THE SI JOINT IMPLANTS. THE PATIENT HAD BILATERAL SI JOINT FUSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LUMBAR FUSION IN (B)(6) 2021. THE PATIENT LATER DEVELOPED AN INFECTION AT THE SURGERY SITE ON THE LEFT SIDE. A DIFFERENT SURGEON DECIDED TO REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL SI JOINT AND SPINAL HARDWARE AS A PRECAUTION. ANTIBIOTIC BEADS WERE ALSO PLACED AT THE SITE. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE SI JOINT IMPLANTS WERE THE SOURCE OF THE INFECTION. THE SI JOINT IMPLANTS WERE REPLACED WITH IMPLANTS OF THE SAME TYPE.
Patient problems: Cellulitis
MAUDE report 12862599 ↗InjuryNov 22, 2021Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device
THE PATIENT HAD BILATERAL SI JOINT ARTHRODESIS IN (B)(6) 2021 WHERE TWO SCREW TYPE IMPLANTS WERE INSTALLED ON EACH SIDE. THE PATIENT HAD SI JOINT PAIN RELIEF FOLLOWING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE, BUT LATER COMPLAINED OF LEFT SIDE RADICULAR PAIN. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE LEFT SIDE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS IMPINGING ON THE NEUROFORAMEN CAUSING RADICULAR PAIN. TWO WEEKS AFTER THE INITIAL PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION PROCEDURE WHERE THE LEFT SIDE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT. NO OTHER PREEXISTING IMPLANTS WERE ADJUSTED OR REMOVED. THE STATUS OF THE PATIENT FOLLOWING THE REVISION PROCEDURE IS NOT KNOWN.
Patient problems: Undesired Nerve Stimulation
MAUDE report 12857246 ↗InjuryNov 2, 2021Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device
THE PATIENT HAD RIGHT SIDE SI JOINT ARTHRODESIS IN (B)(6) 2021 WHERE TWO SCREW TYPE IMPLANTS WERE INSTALLED. THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF RADICULAR PAIN FOLLOWING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS IMPINGING ON THE NEUROFORAMEN CAUSING RADICULAR PAIN. IN (B)(6) 2021, THE SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION PROCEDURE WHERE THE INFERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A SHORTER IMPLANT OF THE SAME TYPE USING THE EXPLANT VOID. NO OTHER PREEXISTING IMPLANTS WERE ADJUSTED OR REMOVED. THE STATUS OF THE PATIENT FOLLOWING THE REVISION PROCEDURE IS NOT KNOWN.
Patient problems: Undesired Nerve Stimulation
MAUDE report 12738841 ↗InjuryOct 21, 2021Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device
THE PATIENT HAD RIGHT SIDE SI JOINT ARTHRODESIS IN (B)(6) 2021 WHERE THREE IMPLANTS WERE INSTALLED. THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF PAIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INITIAL SURGERY. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE SUPERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT HAD BREACHED THE NEUROFORAMEN CAUSING THE PAIN. IN (B)(6) 2021, THE SURGEON PERFORMED A REVISION PROCEDURE WHERE THE SUPERIOR POSITIONED IMPLANT WAS REMOVED. NO OTHER PREEXISTING IMPLANTS WERE ADJUSTED OR REMOVED. THE STATUS OF THE PATIENT FOLLOWING THE REVISION PROCEDURE IS NOT KNOWN.
Patient problems: Undesired Nerve Stimulation
MAUDE report 12674689 ↗
Other Si-Bone Inc. products
All Si-Bone Inc. devices →Sources and updates
- Models: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026. Models are grouped by the brand name the manufacturer registered.
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 18, 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