FDA Closes Recall of restor3d Veritas Glenoid Baseplates
The agency has closed the Class II recall of certain Veritas Standard Glenoid Baseplates, citing completed corrective action.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 8:19 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 8:19 p.m. ETFirst report
restor3d Recalls Veritas Glenoid Baseplates Over Screw Hole Machining Issue
restor3d Inc. of Durham, NC, initiated a recall of its Veritas Standard Reverse Total Shoulder glenoid baseplates on June 30, 2026, according to an FDA enforcement report dated August 26, 2026. The recall, listed as ongoing, affects 59 units distributed nationwide in Texas.
The recall covers model numbers 1500-1030 and 1500-1035, with specific lot numbers A00030, A00065, A09828, A09830, A00064, and A09829. The affected products are identified by UDI-DI codes 00840097513225 and 00840097513232. The FDA classified the action as Class II, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the chance of serious harm is remote.
The reason for the recall is incorrect machining of the peripheral screw hole, which could lead to improper engagement of the peripheral screws. The Veritas standard glenoid baseplate is the only component affected; the patient-specific baseplate is not in scope.
The FDA database records no other enforcement action by restor3d. The recall is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 00:19current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 00:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.