• 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, 13B; 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, 13B; ANTI-REFLUX IMPLANT Back to Search Results
Catalog Number LXMC13
Device Problem Migration or Expulsion of Device (1395)
Patient Problem Pocket Erosion (2013)
Event Date 01/01/2024
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description
It was reported that a linx device eroded.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 1/25/2024 b3: only event year known: 2024 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.No lot number was provided therefore a device history could not be done.Photo images were received.Any additional information obtained from the photo evaluation will be included as part of the product investigation.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 was the date of implant? if the device has been removed, what was the date of explant? what were the first clinical symptoms that provided evidence of an erosion and when did they first occur? has the patient had any dilations, egd, or other procedure between the linx implant and discovery of the erosion? please describe and include the dates of the procedures.Are pictures or videos available? how many beads eroded? where were the eroded beads positioned? which best describes the device removal approach? endoscopically removed the eroded beads initially & laparoscopically removed the device at a later date endoscopically removed the eroded beads & laparoscopically removed the device the same day endoscopically removed the entire device laparoscopically removed the entire device was the patient stented? what is the current condition of the patient? 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.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Date sent: 2/5/2024.D6b: exact date is unk.Assumed first day of the month.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: what is the lot number? unknown what was the date of implant? (b)(6) 2018.If the device has been removed, what was the date of explant? (b)(6) 2023 what were the first clinical symptoms that provided evidence of an erosion and when did they first occur? unknown.Has the patient had any dilations, egd, or other procedure between the linx implant and discovery of the erosion? please describe and include the dates of the procedures.Unknown.Are pictures or videos available? attached.How many beads eroded? unknown.Where were the eroded beads positioned? which best describes the device removal approach? endoscopically removed the entire device.Was the patient stented? unknown.What is the current condition of the patient? good.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Photo analysis: x-ray images of the device in vivo were reviewed by a medical safety officer.As per medical safety officer: "the esophagram images reviewed demonstrate what appears to be an intact linx device within the gastric lumen.The image demonstrates an intact linx device located below the diaphragm." the mechanism/cause of failure is unknown as a hands-on analysis of the device is necessary to determine the cause of failure.No further investigation can be completed at this point.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
1.5T LINX, 13B
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 Key18580918
MDR Text Key333739356
Report Number3008766073-2024-00017
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code LEI
UDI-Device Identifier00855106005332
UDI-Public00855106005332
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
Report Date 02/27/2024
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 Catalogue NumberLXMC13
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received Not provided
Initial Date FDA Received01/25/2024
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received01/25/2024
02/26/2024
Supplement Dates FDA Received02/05/2024
02/27/2024
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? Yes
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
-
-