• 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 BIOINTRAFIX SHEATHTRIAL 9MM *EA; ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANT INSERTER/EXTRACTOR

  • 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 BIOINTRAFIX SHEATHTRIAL 9MM *EA; ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANT INSERTER/EXTRACTOR Back to Search Results
Model Number 254651
Medical Device Problem Code Break (1069)
Health Effect - Clinical Code No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
Date of Event 12/15/2021
Type of Reportable Event Malfunction
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Additional narrative: the lot number was unknown; therefore, the manufacturing site name was unknown.Udi: (b)(4).The lot number was unknown.To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.
 
Event or Problem Description
It was reported by the customer that during an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery on (b)(6) 2021, it was observed that the biointrafix sheathtrial 9mm broke at the weld while using the mallet.All the remaining pieces were pulled by pliers.It was unknown how the procedure was completed.There were no adverse patient consequences nor surgical delay reported.No additional information was provided.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Investigation summary the complaint device was not returned after multiple attempts for device return, therefore unavailable for a physical evaluation.With the information provided, and without the complaint device to evaluate, we cannot determine a root cause for the reported failure.Given that the lot number was not provided, the manufacturing record evaluation (mre) review cannot be performed.If the lot number becomes available, the mre review will be performed.Should the device ever be received back in the future, this complaint file will be reopened at that time and an evaluation will be performed and documented.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent to which this complaint is observed in the field.Device history lot no lot numbers were supplied which precludes conducting a dhr review or a lot-specific search in the complaints handling system.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Investigation summary
=
> the product was returned to mitek for evaluation.Mitek then conducted visual inspection of device received.Visual observations confirms that the device was received broken and separated in two pieces at the weld point near the connection handle-shaft.In addition, is dull and the device appears worn.The complaint can be confirmed.No lot numbers were supplied which precludes conducting a dhr review or a lot-specific search in the complaints handling system.This type of failure is typically observed after the device has been reprocessed over the course of many years therefore causing the weld integrity to degrade.However, given the information provided we cannot discern a definitive root cause for the reported failure.As per ifu, inspect for damage prior to use; and replace a damaged, worn or bent instrument.Also, the end of useful instrument life is generally determined by wear or damage from handling or surgical use.Inspect instruments between uses to verify proper functioning.Finally, it is necessary to follow the instructions and warnings of any cleaning and disinfection agents and equipment used; also, the recommendation of the proper condition during the sterilization and maintenance to avoid any damage.At this point in time, no corrective action is required, and no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.: d9, h3, h6: the actual device has been returned and is currently pending evaluation.Once reliability engineering evaluates the device, a supplemental medwatch report will be sent accordingly.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Common Device Name
ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANT INSERTER/EXTRACTOR
Manufacturer (Section D)
DEPUY MITEK LLC US
325 paramount drive
raynham MA 02767
Manufacturer Contact
kara ditty-bovard
325 paramount drive
raynham, MA 02767
6103142063
MDR Report Key13178789
Report Number1221934-2022-00050
Device Sequence Number19988649
Product Code LXH
UDI-Device Identifier10886705013425
UDI-Public10886705013425
Combination Product (Y/N)N
Initial Reporter StateWA
Initial Reporter CountryUS
PMA/510(K) Number
EXEMPT
Number of Events Summarized1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Serviced by Third Party (Y/N)Unknown
Reporter Type Manufacturer
Report Source Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
Initial Reporter Occupation Other Health Care Professional
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date (Section B) 01/06/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Operator of Device Health Professional
Device Model Number254651
Device Catalogue Number254651
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer02/01/2022
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Type of Report(Section G)Thirty-Day
Initial Date Received by Manufacturer 12/16/2021
Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer01/11/2022
02/01/2022
02/05/2022
Initial Report FDA Received Date01/06/2022
Supplement Report FDA Received Date01/11/2022
02/02/2022
02/07/2022
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N) Yes
Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N) No
Is This a Single-Use Device that was
Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N)
No
Usage of Device Unknown
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient SexUnknown
-
-