| Model Number |
7210425 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Mechanical Jam (2983)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
01/28/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the accu-pass str shuttle 45 deg up did not advance the nylon monofilament.The procedure was completed with a delay of 30 minutes or less using a back-up device.No patient injury or other complications were reported.All available information has been disclosed.If additional information should become available, a supplemental report will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3, h6: the reported device, used in treatment, was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.A review of the device history records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification or would not be able to perform as intended.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.A relationship, if any, between the subject device and the reported event could not be determined.Please refer to the instructions for use for recommendations on proper use of the device and potential troubleshooting methods to prevent future reoccurrence of the reported event.If the product associated with this event is returned at a future date, this evaluation will be reopened for investigation.Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3,h6: the reported device, used in treatment, was received for evaluation.There was no relationship found between the returned device and the reported incident.A review of the device history records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification or would not be able to perform as intended.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.A visual inspection revealed the device was returned outside of original packaging.The device was received with monofilament.No visible damage to the device.A functional evaluation revealed the device functioned as intended.The complaint was not verified and the root cause could not be determined since the reported malfunction could not be duplicated during the product evaluation process.Please refer to the instructions for use for recommendations on proper use of the device and potential troubleshooting methods to prevent future reoccurrence of the reported event.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|