MectaLIF Anterior SystemRecalls & reported problems across all models
Medacta International SA · 12 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 22
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 8
- Recalls
- 0
We found 12 models of MectaLIF Anterior System by Medacta International SA in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 22 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Nov 22, 2017 and May 6, 2025 — classified as 8 injuries, 14 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (8 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
Reports received per month, all models
Most reported MectaLIF Anterior System problems
Device problems
- Break8
- Fracture6
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem2
- Detachment of Device or Device Component1
- Device Dislodged or Dislocated1
- Device Slipped1
- Fitting Problem1
- Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size1
Patient problems
- No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient13
- Pain3
- Insufficient Information2
- Failure of Implant1
- Foreign Body In Patient1
- No Code Available1
- Unspecified Infection1
MectaLIF Anterior System models
12 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.133Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar6 reports
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.132Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar5 reports
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.131Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar2 reports
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.126Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.201Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.202Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.213Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.31.002Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.31.006Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.31.008Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.31.028Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior System 03.30.112Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 report
Recent MectaLIF Anterior System adverse event reports
The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryMay 6, 2025Positioning Problem; Positioning Problem
AT ABOUT FEW DAYS AFTER PRIMARY, THE PATIENT CAME IN REPORTING PAIN. FROM THE TAC IT WAS VISIBLE THAT THE SCREW IMPLANTED WAS NEAR TO S1 ROOT. DURING THE REVISION, BECAUSE THE HEAD OF THE SCREW TO BE REVISED WAS STRIPPED, ALL THE IMPLANTS HAD TO BE REMOVED AND A NEW CAGE, SCREWS AND PLATE PUT IN. SURGERY COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21968730 ↗InjuryDec 16, 2022Fracture; Fracture
THE SURGEON NOTED AFTER SURGERY THAT THE S1 SCREW HAD BROKEN. THE SURGEON THERE WAS NOT A COMPLETE FUSION ACROSS THE CAGE AND EVENTUALLY DECIDED TO FURTHER STABILIZE THE PATIENT WITH POSTERIOR FIXATION, ABOUT 3 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS AFTER THE PRIMARY SURGERY.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 15994328 ↗InjuryDec 16, 2022Fracture; Fracture
THE SURGEON NOTED AFTER SURGERY THAT THE S1 SCREW HAD BROKEN. THE SURGEON THERE WAS NOT A COMPLETE FUSION ACROSS THE CAGE AND EVENTUALLY DECIDED TO FURTHER STABILIZE THE PATIENT WITH POSTERIOR FIXATION, ABOUT 3 YEARS AFTER THE PRIMARY SURGERY. THIS PATIENT HAD BILATERAL PARS DEFECT ALREADY AT THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY SURGERY WITH EVEN A GRADE 1 OF SPONDYLOLISTHESIS.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 15994327 ↗MalfunctionSep 3, 2019Fracture; Fracture
THE PATIENT CAME IN FOR A POST-OP X-RAY 2 MONTHS AND 10 DAYS AFTER PRIMARY AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AN ALIF SCREW HAD FRACTURED. THE REASON FOR THE SCREW FRACTURE IS UNKNOWN. THE SURGEON DOES NOT PLAN ON REVISING THE PATIENT AT THIS TIME, BUT WILL MONITOR THE PATIENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8955164 ↗MalfunctionSep 2, 2019Break; Fracture; Break; Fracture
THE PATIENT CAME IN FOR A POST-OP X-RAY 5 MONTHS AND 2 DAYS AFTER PRIMARY AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AN ALIF SCREW HAD FRACTURED. THE REASON FOR THE SCREW FRACTURE IS UNKNOWN. THE SURGEON DOES NOT PLAN ON REVISING THE PATIENT AT THIS TIME, BUT WILL MONITOR THE PATIENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8953780 ↗MalfunctionSep 2, 2019Break; Break
THE PATIENT CAME IN COMPLAINING OF PAIN DUE TO A SCREW FRACTURE. DURING THE PRIMARY SPINE SURGERY, A LARGE ANTERIOR OSTEOPHYTE WAS PRESENT AND IMPEDED THE CAGE TO BE PLACED ALL THE WAY POSTERIOR TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE VERTEBRAL BODY. THE IMPLANT WAS PROUD ANTERIORLY AND NOT IN AN IDEAL POSITION. THE PATIENT WAS ALSO FRACTURED IN THE ANTERIOR SUPERIOR CORNER OF S1. THE PATIENT DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY ADDITIONAL SUBSIDENCE OR INSTABILITY. THE SURGEON DOES NOT PLAN ON REVISING THE PATIENT AT THIS TIME, BUT WILL MONITOR THE PATIENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8953728 ↗MalfunctionJul 5, 2019Break; Break
SPINE SCREW BREAKAGE AFTER ABOUT 1 YEAR AND 7 MONTHS FROM PRIMARY SURGERY. NO EVIDENCE OF REVISION SURGERY PERFORMED FOR THE MOMENT. THE PATIENT HAD A REVISION SURGERY FEW DAYS AFTER PRIMARY TO PUT L5 ENDPLATE AND TO SHORTEN S1 SCREW SITTING IN THE FORAMEN, THE SURGEON ONLY SWAPPED OUT 1 SCREW AS HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH SIZE HE ORIGINALLY USED. THE PRIMARY SURGERY HAS BEEN PERFORMED ON THE (B)(6) 2017.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8764337 ↗InjuryJul 5, 2019Fracture; Fracture
SCREW BREAKAGE AFTER ABOUT 1 YEAR FROM PRIMARY SURGERY. NO REVISION SURGERY HAS BEEN PERFORMED FOR THE MOMENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8764307 ↗MalfunctionMay 10, 2019Device Slipped
THE SURGEON DISCOVERED THAT ONE OF THE SCREW BACKED OUT. THE SURGEON DOESN'T REVISE THE SCREW BUT HE IS MONITORING THIS PATIENT TO UNDERSTAND IF THE SCREW IS CONTINUING TO BACK-OUT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8599631 ↗MalfunctionMay 9, 2019Fitting Problem
DURING SURGERY THE FINAL SCREW FAILED TO LOCK IN THE PLATE. IT JUST KEPT TURNING IN THE PLATE AND BONE. THE SURGEON TRIED A RESCUE SCREW AND SAME RESULT. THE SURGEON DID NOT WANT TO REMOVE THE PLATE AND LEFT WITH 3 SCREWS ONLY.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8595278 ↗InjuryApr 17, 2019Fracture; Fracture
THE PATIENT CAME IN COMPLAINING OF PAIN WHICH WAS CAUSED BY A BROKEN MECTALIF ANTERIOR SCREW IN THE S1 VERTEBRAE AND THE CAUSE OF THE BROKEN SCREW IS UNKNOWN. THE SURGEON HAS NOT SCHEDULED A REVISION SURGERY AT THIS TIME.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 8522860 ↗MalfunctionNov 19, 2018Break; Detachment of Device or Device Component
FROM THE FINAL PER-OP X-RAYS THE SURGEON DETECTED THAT THE PLATE WAS PROUD BY 1MM FROM THE ANTERIOR PORTION OF THE VERTEBRAL BODY. HE PROCEEDED TO USE THE FIXED STRAIGHT SCREW DRIVER TO BRING THE PLATE DOWN AND BY OVERNIGHTING THE SCREW, THE HEAD SHEARED OFF. THERE WERE NO FRAGMENTS, IT WAS A CLEAN BREAK. THE SCREW SHANK WAS LEFT IN PLACE, BURIED/COUNTERSUNK IN THE CAGE/BONE. THE BROKEN SCREW HEAD WAS REMOVED. NO DEFORMATION OR BREAKAGE OF THE INSTRUMENTS OCCURRED. THERE WERE A FIVE MINUTES OF DELAY IN THE CASE. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8084558 ↗MalfunctionOct 5, 2018Positioning Failure; Positioning Failure
THE SURGEON WAS UNABLE TO USE CAGES LARGER THAN 10MM IN THE PATIENT. THE SURGEON ONLY USES FLUSH PLATES AS HIS PERSONAL PREFERENCE (COMPATIBLE TILL 12MM CAGES). THE SURGEON IMPLANTED THE CAGE WITHOUT THE PLATE AND THE CAGE SUNK. HE USED THE STANDARD INSERTER. THE SURGEON SPENT 30 MINUTES TO REPOSITION IT. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 7938074 ↗MalfunctionSep 20, 2018Break; Break
THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF BACK PAIN ON (B)(6) 2018 AND WAS SENT FOR X-RAYS (L5/S1 ALIF PROCEDURE). THIS SHOWED BOTH S1 SCREWS HAD BROKEN. THE SURGEON HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVISE THIS AND ALSO TO CHANGE HIS TECHNIQUE TO INCLUDE DRILLING AND ALSO MORE X-RAYS DURING PROCEDURE TO ENSURE NO GAP. HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE CAGE IS FUSING WELL AND THAT THE PAIN IS NOT COMING FROM THIS.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 7893365 ↗MalfunctionJun 8, 2018Break; Break
DURING THE FINAL TIGHTENING TWO SCREW HEADS BROKE. THE PATIENT HAS VERY SCLEROTIC BONE AND THE SURGEON DIDN'T USE THE TORQUE LIMITER BECAUSE HE NEEDED AN HIGHER TORQUE. THE SCREWS WERE LEAVED IN THE PATIENT AND THE SCREW HEADS RECOVERED.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient
MAUDE report 7582498 ↗
Other Medacta International SA products
- GMK Sphere Total Knee System209 models · 2,306 reports
- GMK Primary Total Knee System99 models · 876 reports
- Shoulder System63 models · 716 reports
- AMIStem H Femoral Stems20 models · 679 reports
- Mpact Acetabular System68 models · 609 reports
- Mectacer Biolox Delta Femoral Ball Head15 models · 551 reports
- Quadra H femoral stems32 models · 354 reports
- MectaLIF Anterior6 models · 4 reports · 6 recalls
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 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