• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: DEPUY MITEK LLC US UNKNOWN RIGIDFIX CROSS PIN; SOFT-TISSUE ANCHOR, BIOABSORBABLE

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

DEPUY MITEK LLC US UNKNOWN RIGIDFIX CROSS PIN; SOFT-TISSUE ANCHOR, BIOABSORBABLE Back to Search Results
Catalog Number UNK RIGIDFIX
Device Problem Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
Patient Problems Unspecified Infection (1930); Tissue Damage (2104)
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
This report is for an unknown.Part and lot number are unknown.Without the specific part number; the udi number and 510-k number is unknown.Complainant part is not expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation.Without a lot number the device history records review could not be completed.Product was not returned.Based on the information available, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.This complaint will be accounted for and monitored via post market surveillance activities.If additional information is made available, the investigation will be updated as applicable.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.[(b)(4)].
 
Event Description
This report is being filed after the review of the following journal article: ahn, jh., et al.(2008), "comparison of revision surgery with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and outcome of revision surgery between different graft materials", the american journal of sports medicine, vol.36, no.10, pages 1889-1895 (korea).The study emphasizes the clinical and stability results between primary and revision acl reconstruction and the results of revision surgery between different graft materials.The patients evaluated on course of this study: this retrospective study included 55 patients (56 operations) who were available for follow-up among 59 operations between january 1997 and october 2005.Fifty-two primary acl reconstructions (92.9%) had been done by other surgeons with use of 15 achilles allografts, 14 bone-patellar tendon-bone (bptb) allografts, 9 bptb autografts, 5 artificial ligaments, 5 double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autografts, and 4 achilles autografts.The 4 patients had undergone reconstruction with bptb autografts.Among 4 patients, 3 patients were advised because of traumatic rerupture, and 1 patient was revised because of infection.A double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autograft were used because it has better results in terms of ligamentization of second-look arthroscopies.Bptb allograft was used in the case of athletes because of rapid bone-to-bone healing and achilles allograft in the case of tunnel widening because of the additional bone graft with remnant bone.Twenty-one (37.5%) knees had revision reconstruction with previously unharvested ipsilateral double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autografts.Twenty (35.7%) were bptb allografts, and 15 (26.8%) were achilles allografts.For the primary acl reconstruction, we evaluated a series of 117 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic acl reconstruction using double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autografts fixed width 2 bioabsorbable cross-pins on the femoral side from september 2001 to november 2002.The article describes the following procedure: all patients were examined under general anesthesia (lachman test, pivot-shift test, varus and valgus stress test, posterolateral instability test), after which routine (diagnostic arthroscopy was performed.Meniscal injury and articular cartilage lesion were evaluated and, if necessary, meniscectomy or meniscal repair and treatment for a cartilage lesion (chondroplasty or microfracture) were performed.The devices involved were: rigidfix cross-pins (rigldfix system, mitek, johnson & johnson, (b)(4)) with temporary insertion of wire, the hamstring autograft was inserted.Complications mentioned in the article were: 3 patients were revised because of traumatic rerupture, and 1 patient was revised because of infection.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
UNKNOWN RIGIDFIX CROSS PIN
Type of Device
SOFT-TISSUE ANCHOR, BIOABSORBABLE
Manufacturer (Section D)
DEPUY MITEK LLC US
325 paramount drive
raynham MA 02767
Manufacturer Contact
kara ditty-bovard
325 paramount drive
raynham, MA 02767
5089776860
MDR Report Key9134445
MDR Text Key166155603
Report Number1221934-2019-58663
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code HTY
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeKS
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type foreign,literature
Reporter Occupation Other Health Care Professional
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 09/16/2019
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue NumberUNK RIGIDFIX
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 09/16/2019
Initial Date FDA Received09/30/2019
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
-
-