| Model Number |
PM431R |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Fragmentation (1261)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/01/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to aesculap ag that a jaw ins.Bip.Maryland diss.Fcps 5/310mm (part # pm431r) was used during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2021.According to the complainant, during the procedure, a tiny piece of the instrument broke off and fell into the patient.The surgeon was able to retrieve the fragment, and then the procedure was continued and successfully completed.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.An additional medical intervention was necessary.Although requested, additional information has not been made available.The adverse event is filed under aag reference (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturing site evaluation: investigation on-going.Should relevant additional information / investigation results become available, a supplemental medwatch report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturing site evaluation: investigation on-going.Should relevant additional information / investigation results become available, a supplemental medwatch report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to aesculap inc.That a jaw ins.Bip.Maryland diss.Fcps 5/310mm (part#: pm431r) was used during a laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy procedure.A tiny part of the jaw insert broke off and fell into the patient.No mention of any delay in surgery.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation results: visual investigation: at the first sight the instrument shows no defects or damages.We made a visual inspection of the jaw and its ceramic insulation.We found the insulation cracked and damaged at several points.The broken parts were not enclosed.Batch history review: the device quality and manufacturing history records (dhr) have been checked for all leading device(s) lot numbers and the products found to be according to our specification valid at the time of production.There are no similar complaints against the same lot number(s) with this error pattern.The review of risk assessment revealed that the overall risk level (severity 4(5) x probability of occurrence 2(5)) according to din en iso 14971 is still acceptable.Explanation and rationale: without further knowledge about the circumstances we assume, that a too high force was applid on the jaw during surgery.A material failure or a manufacturing error can be excluded.Conclusion and measures / preventive measures: due to the current deviation and according to the explanation above, the root cause of the problem is most probably usage-related.Based upon the investigations results a capa is not necessary.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|