POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEMRecalls & reported problems across all models
Biomet Spine LLC · 17 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 74
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 25
- Recalls
- 0
We found 17 models of POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM by Biomet Spine LLC in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 74 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Jan 8, 2021 and Jan 13, 2026 — classified as 25 injuries, 49 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Material Deformation” (19 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 POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM problems
Device problems
- Material Deformation19
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem18
- Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth7
- Device-Device Incompatibility5
- Migration5
- Physical Resistance/Sticking5
- Wrong Label5
- Failure to Osseointegrate3
Patient problems
- No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions48
- Pain20
- Inadequate Osseointegration3
- Spinal Column Injury2
- No Consequences Or Impact To Patient1
POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM models
17 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-1005Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system43 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-578540Appliance, fixation, spinal intervertebral body5 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2445Appliance, fixation, spinal intervertebral body4 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2335APPLIANCE, FIXATION, SPINAL INTERLAMINAL3 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-578445Orthosis, spondylolisthesis spinal fixation3 reports
- POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2450Orthosis, spondylolisthesis spinal fixation3 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-500591Appliance, fixation, spinal intervertebral body2 reports
- Polaris™ 5.5 Spinal System 94672Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system2 reports
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2540Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2535Orthosis, spinal pedicle fixation1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2345Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-2140Orthosis, spinal pedicle fixation1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 2000-1008Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-578680Pedicle screw spinal system, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-578670APPLIANCE, FIXATION, SPINAL INTERLAMINAL1 report
- POLARIS™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM 14-578535Orthosis, spondylolisthesis spinal fixation1 report
- Polaris™ 5.5 Spinal System 94671Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system1 report
Recent POLARIS 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM adverse event reports
The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryJan 13, 2026Failure to Osseointegrate
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO ADDRESS PSEUDOARTHROSIS AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM LEVELS OF AN L1-S1 PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT. THE CONSTRUCT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED DURING THE REVISION, EXCEPT FOR BOTH THE SCREWS AT L5 WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED DUE TO A BROKEN DRIVER. THIS IS REPORT ELEVEN OF EIGHTEEN FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration
MAUDE report 24058671 ↗InjuryJan 13, 2026Failure to Osseointegrate
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO ADDRESS PSEUDOARTHROSIS AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM LEVELS OF AN L1-S1 PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT. THE CONSTRUCT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED DURING THE REVISION, EXCEPT FOR BOTH THE SCREWS AT L5 WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED DUE TO A BROKEN DRIVER. THIS IS REPORT TEN OF EIGHTEEN FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration
MAUDE report 24058610 ↗InjuryJan 13, 2026Failure to Osseointegrate
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO ADDRESS PSEUDOARTHROSIS AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM LEVELS OF AN L1-S1 PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT. THE CONSTRUCT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED DURING THE REVISION, EXCEPT FOR BOTH THE SCREWS AT L5 WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED DUE TO A BROKEN DRIVER. THIS IS REPORT NINE OF EIGHTEEN FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration
MAUDE report 24058521 ↗MalfunctionJan 9, 2026Material Deformation
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE INNER HEXAGON OF A POLARIS 5.5 DEROTATION PLUG WAS DAMAGED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO TIGHTEN IT. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT IMPACT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 24023354 ↗MalfunctionNov 5, 2025Wrong Label; Wrong Label
A DISTRIBUTOR REPORTED THAT THEY RECEIVED TWO POLARIS 5.5 CROSS CONNECTORS THAT DIFFERED FROM THE PACKAGING LABELS. THE CONNECTORS INSIDE THE PACKAGES WERE NOT SIZE M, AS INDICATED, BUT SIZE XS. THIS WAS DISCOVERED PRIOR TO SURGICAL USE AND THERE WAS NO PATIENT IMPACT. THIS IS REPORT TWO OF TWO FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 23479711 ↗MalfunctionNov 5, 2025Wrong Label; Wrong Label
A DISTRIBUTOR REPORTED THAT THEY RECEIVED TWO POLARIS 5.5 CROSS CONNECTORS THAT DIFFERED FROM THE PACKAGING LABELS. THE CONNECTORS INSIDE THE PACKAGES WERE NOT SIZE M, AS INDICATED, BUT SIZE XS. THIS WAS DISCOVERED PRIOR TO SURGICAL USE AND THERE WAS NO PATIENT IMPACT.THIS IS REPORT ONE OF TWO FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 23479654 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT TWELVE OF TWENTY-SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981376 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT ELEVEN OF TWENTY-SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981235 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT TEN OF TWENTY-SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981176 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT NINE OF TWENTY SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981136 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT EIGHT OF TWENTY SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981100 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT SEVEN OF TWENTY-SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981055 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT SIX OF TWENTY SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21981047 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT FIVE OF TWENTY SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21980979 ↗InjuryMay 7, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE AN HA COATED PEDICLE SCREW CONSTRUCT FROM LEVELS L1 THROUGH S1 BECAUSE THE HARDWARE WAS CAUSING THE PATIENT PAIN. THE PATIENT HAD SOLIDLY FUSED PRIOR TO THE REVISION SO THE CONSTRUCT WAS NO LONGER OF USE AND WAS NOT REPLACED WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE. ONE OF THE SCREWS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSTRUCT WAS UNABLE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE TIP OF THE HEIGHT ADJUSTER BROKE OFF IN THE SCREW HEAD. THIS IS REPORT FOUR OF TWENTY-SIX FOR THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 21980903 ↗
Other Biomet Spine LLC products
All Biomet Spine LLC 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