|
Product complaint number: (b)(4).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 inc, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, ethicon inc 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.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot, and no non-conformance's were identified.Investigation summary: one open box and 44 unopened samples of product code: j353, lot: rjmdbk were returned for analysis.As per the sampling plan, a visual inspection was performed on thirteen samples, the packets were opened, and no defects were detected.The swage and attachment area were noted to be as expected.The sutures were dispensed without problems and no anomalies were noted.Besides, the samples were tested by resistance test to needle and met the requirements.As part of our quality process, the manufacturing records of this lot-serial number were reviewed, and the manufacturing standards were met prior to the release of this batch.As part of ethicon quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Complaint information will be included in complaint trending that is reviewed on a regular basis to determine if further action is necessary.Additional investigation summary: a failed suture needle, labeled as (b)(4), was submitted fractographic evaluation on june 13, 2022.The component was identified as product code: j353h.It was requested that assess the fracture mode of the failure.A fracture was observed near the tip of the needle.The needle was received in two pieces, only one of the mating fracture surfaces was examined for this evaluation.A scanning electron microscope (sem) was used to examine the fracture surfaces and surrounding area of the needle.The fracture surfaces were examined in multiple locations to determine the fracture mode.The evaluation of (b)(4) revealed the fracture was composed of microvoid coalescence, which is evidence of a ductile fracture mode.This was a ductile fracture.The evidence of this examination indicates that the breakage occurred at the tip of the needle during use due to tensile overload.There is no evidence of any material flaw or defect that would cause premature failure.In order to avoid this kind of damage grasp the needle in an area one-third (1/3) to one-half (1/2) of the distance from the attachment end to the point.The needle breakage was confirmed.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post-market surveillance.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 was the size of the needle used?.
|