Prodisc C VivoRecalls & reported problems across all models
Centinel Spine, LLC · 10 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 69
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 61
- Recalls
- 0
We found 10 models of Prodisc C Vivo by Centinel Spine, LLC in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 69 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Jun 21, 2023 and Sep 16, 2026 — classified as 61 injuries, 8 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Migration” (40 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 Prodisc C Vivo problems
Device problems
- Migration40
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem10
- Osseointegration Problem6
- Patient-Device Incompatibility6
- Fracture2
- Insufficient Device Problem Information2
- Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method1
- Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size1
Patient problems
- Insufficient Information28
- Neck Pain16
- Limb Pain9
- Hypersensitivity/Allergic reaction6
- Pain6
- No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions5
- Burning Sensation2
- Extraskeletal ossification2
Prodisc C Vivo models
10 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVM5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc21 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVL5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc20 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVXL5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc7 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVLD5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc6 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVMD5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc5 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVLD6Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc3 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVMD6Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc2 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVXL6Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc2 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVXLD5Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc2 reports
- Prodisc C Vivo PDVL6Prosthesis, Intervertebral Disc1 report
Recent Prodisc C Vivo adverse event reports
The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjurySep 16, 2026Migration
A patient was implanted with a 2-level Prodisc C Vivo device below a fusion at C5-7 on (b)(6) 2026. There was no report of patient pain or other symptoms. However, imaging showed that the implant at C5-6 had migrated anteriorly. The implant was removed from C5-6 on (b)(6) 2026 and replaced with a Prodisc C Nova device.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 50783245 ↗InjurySep 15, 2026Migration
A patient was implanted with a 2-level Prodisc C Vivo device on (b)(6) 2025. The patient reporting having neck pain. Imaging showed that the implant had migrated anteriorly and possible osteolysis. The implants were removed on (b)(6) 2026 and the patient was fused.
Patient problems: Neck Pain
MAUDE report 50773739 ↗InjurySep 15, 2026Migration
A patient was implanted with a 2-level Prodisc C Vivo device on (b)(6) 2025. The patient reporting having neck pain. Imaging showed that the implant had migrated anteriorly and possible osteolysis. The implants were removed on (b)(6) 2026 and the patient was fused.
Patient problems: Neck Pain
MAUDE report 50772989 ↗InjuryAug 18, 2026Migration
A patient was implanted with a Prodisc C Vivo device on (b)(6)2025. It is unknown if the patient experienced any symptoms, however, imaging showed that the implant had migrated. The implant was removed on (b)(6)2026 and the patient was fused.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 50305536 ↗InjuryJul 29, 2026Migration
A patient was implanted with a Prodisc C Vivo device at C5-6 on (b)(6) 2025. The patient was experiencing neck pain. It was found that the superior endplate had migrated anteriorly. The implant was removed on (b)(6) 2026 and the patient was fused.
Patient problems: Neck Pain
MAUDE report 50073418 ↗MalfunctionJul 1, 2026Migration
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT LEVEL C6-7 ON (B)(6) 2025. IT WAS LATER FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED POSTERIORLY. NO PATIENT SYMPTOMS WERE PROVIDED AND A REMOVAL WAS INITIALLY SCHEDULED AND THEN CANCELLED. NO MEDICAL INTERVENTION HAS BEEN NOTED AT THIS TIME.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25681934 ↗InjuryJun 16, 2026Osseointegration Problem
A PATIENT (76YO, MALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT C3-4 ON (B)(6) 2026. PATIENT HAD SYMPTOMS CONSISTENT WITH STENOSIS AND KYPHOSIS, AND IMPLANT SUBSIDENCE WAS SEEN ON IMAGING. THE VIVO WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2026 AND REPLACED WITH A THREE LEVEL ACDF.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25519961 ↗InjuryJun 5, 2026Migration
A PATIENT (53 YO, FEMALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT LEVEL C5-6 ON (B)(6) 2024. THE PATIENT WAS EXPERIENCING NECK PAIN AND MILD RIGHT ARM PAIN. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED ANTERIORLY. THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2026 AND THE PATIENT WAS FUSED.
Patient problems: Limb Pain; Neck Pain
MAUDE report 25407547 ↗InjuryMay 20, 2026Migration
A PATIENT (40-YEAR-OLD MALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT LEVEL C5-6 ON (B)(6) 2025. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED ANTERIORLY. IT IS UNKNOWN IF THE PATIENT WAS SYMPTOMATIC. THE VIVO WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2026 AND WAS REPLACED WITH A PDC SK DEVICE.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25229823 ↗InjuryMay 8, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
A PATIENT (42YO, FEMALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT C5-6 ON (B)(6) 2026. NO INFORMATION ON PATIENT SYMPTOMS WAS PROVIDED. HOWEVER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE POSTERIOR AREA MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WELL ENOUGH AND ADDITIONALLY THAT THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2026 AND THE PATIENT WAS CONVERTED TO A THREE LEVEL FUSION SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER AFFECTED LEVELS. HOWEVER, NO REASON FOR REMOVAL WAS CONFIRMED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25124277 ↗MalfunctionMay 5, 2026Migration
A PATIENT (44YO, FEMALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE IN (B)(6) 2024 AT LEVEL C3-4. AT 18 MONTHS POSTOP IT WAS FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25087122 ↗MalfunctionMay 5, 2026Migration
A PATIENT (54YO, MALE) WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT LEVEL C6-7 IN (B)(6) 2025. AT 3 MONTHS POSTOP IT WAS FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 25087094 ↗InjuryApr 16, 2026Migration
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT LEVEL C3-4 ON (B)(6) 2025. THE PATIENT WAS EXPERIENCING A LITTLE BIT OF PAIN AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE IMPLANT HAD MIGRATED ANTERIORLY. THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2026 AND THE PATIENT WAS FUSED.
Patient problems: Pain
MAUDE report 24896406 ↗MalfunctionApr 7, 2026Migration
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT C4-5 ON (B)(6) 2024. AT SIX MONTHS POSTOP THE IMPLANT WAS WELL POSITIONED. AT EIGHTEEN MONTHS POSTOP THE SUPERIOR ENDPLATE HAD MIGRATED. NO PATIENT SYMPTOMS OR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL INTERVENTION WAS REPORTED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 24802589 ↗MalfunctionApr 7, 2026Migration
A PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH A PDC VIVO DEVICE AT C4-5 ON (B)(6) 2024. AT EIGHTEEN MONTHS POSTOP THE SUPERIOR ENDPLATE HAD MIGRATED. NO PATIENT SYMPTOMS OR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL INTERVENTION WAS REPORTED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 24802588 ↗
Other Centinel Spine, LLC products
All Centinel 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 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