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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: TORAX MEDICAL, INC. 1.5T LINX, 14B; ANTI-REFLUX IMPLANT

  • 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
 

TORAX MEDICAL, INC. 1.5T LINX, 14B; ANTI-REFLUX IMPLANT Back to Search Results
Catalog Number LXMC14
Device Problems Migration or Expulsion of Device (1395); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
Patient Problems Breast Cancer (1759); Vomiting (2144); Hernia (2240)
Event Date 12/08/2023
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent 12/19/2023 an analysis of the product could not be performed since a physical sample was not received for evaluation.As part of our company quality system process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and distributed to approved specifications.However, if the product is received at a later date, the investigation will be updated as applicable.An evaluation of the manufacturing record could not be performed as the required product identification number was not provided to complete the evaluation.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent: what is the lot number? what is the date of implant? has the device been explanted? if yes, what was the explant date? by ¿slipped¿ do you mean the device migrated? if no, what is meant by ¿slipped¿? how was the migration of the device diagnosed (chest x-ray, esophageal line at explant)? are there images available that shows the migration? did the patient have a hiatal hernia at the time of implant? if yes was this repaired at this time of implant? does the patient have a re-occurring hernia now? if yes, did the position of the device change based on the hernia reoccurring? this report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by ethicon, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, ethicon, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
 
Event Description
It was reported that the linx slipped and needed to be removed breast cancer patient with chemotherapy.Lots of vomiting with chemo.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 1/18/2024.Photo images were received.Any additional information obtained from the photo evaluation will be included as part of the product investigation.Additional information received: the patient did have a hiatal hernia at the time of implant and it was repaired at that time.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent: how was the migration of the device diagnosed (chest x-ray, esophageal line at explant)? are there images available that shows the migration? please send images to productcomplaint1@its.Jnj.Com.At the time of explant did the patient have a re-occurring hernia? if yes, did the position of the device change based on the hernia reoccurring? b1, b2, h1.Upon review of the additional information it was determined that there was no recurrent hernia upon explant.This file is now usa fda reportable again.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 1/3/2024.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: what is the lot number? 29442 what is the date of implant? (b)(6) 2023.Has the device been explanted? yes.If yes, what was the explant date? (b)(6) 2023.By ¿slipped¿ do you mean the device migrated? the device slipped down to the stomach and caused a partial blockage.If no, what is meant by ¿slipped¿? how was the migration of the device diagnosed (chest x-ray, esophageal line at explant)? upper gi with barium swallow are there images available that shows the migration? the images can be obtained.Did the patient have a hiatal hernia at the time of implant? if yes was this repaired at this time of implant? yes, yes.Does the patient have a re-occurring hernia now? if yes, did the position of the device change based on the hernia reoccurring? yes b1, b2, h1.Upon review of the fiel it was determined that the migration of the linx device was due to the recurrent hernia.Thus the device migrated not due to a product failure but possibly due to a surgical technique error.This file is now usa fda not reportable.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 2/5/2024.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: how was the migration of the device diagnosed (chest x-ray, esophageal line at explant)? are there images available that shows the migration? please send images to productcomplaint1@its.Jnj.Com.At the time of explant did the patient have a re-occurring hernia? if yes, did the position of the device change based on the hernia reoccurring? answer: spoke with dr.Lee and she said that there was no obvious re-occurring hernia but she also didn¿t go look for one either.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 3/26/2024.Photo review: x-ray images of the device in vivo were reviewed by a medical safety officer.As per medical safety officer: "the images appear to demonstrate an intact linx device located below the diaphragm.Limited contrast images make it difficult to determine if there is a hiatal hernia present." physical analysis: overall review of the device function and dimensions show no anomalies from a device that has been reasonably changed as part of the explant procedure.Visual analysis was consistent with an explanted device, significant tooling marks were noted in some beads.Link length and tensile force were found to meet the applicable specifications.Overall, no analysis conclusions relevant to the patient experience were found.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device 29442 number, and no non-conformances related to the malfunction were identified.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
1.5T LINX, 14B
Type of Device
ANTI-REFLUX IMPLANT
Manufacturer (Section D)
TORAX MEDICAL, INC.
4545 creek road
cincinnati OH
Manufacturer Contact
kate karberg
4545 creek rd.
cincinnati, OH 45242
3035526892
MDR Report Key18355981
MDR Text Key330885869
Report Number3008766073-2023-00255
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code LEI
UDI-Device Identifier00855106005349
UDI-Public00855106005349
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P100049
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 03/26/2024
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? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Expiration Date11/30/2022
Device Catalogue NumberLXMC14
Device Lot Number29442
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 12/09/2023
Initial Date FDA Received12/19/2023
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received12/21/2023
01/03/2024
01/24/2024
03/25/2024
Supplement Dates FDA Received01/03/2024
01/18/2024
02/05/2024
03/26/2024
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured11/30/2018
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? Yes
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
-
-