| Model Number |
FT22BN35NGE920N |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Disconnection (1171)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/18/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the customer was using the tracheostomy on her one year old daughter, a patient with a critical airway that cannot be bagged or intubated from above.The trach had fallen out, but she was able to put it in right away.At that time it was noticed that one of the phalanges had broken off rendering the trach useless.The trach was a brand-new trach and received in october.Two different trachs were chosen for emergency replacement, however those cuffs were found damaged at the time of placement, also rendering those trachs useless.Fourth tube was placed successfully.Patient remains stable.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation including root cause analysis is in progress.A supplemental mdr will be filed as necessary in accordance with 21 cfr 803.56 when additional reportable information becomes available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: one used product was received for investigation as well as photographs of the product.The photos show a device with evidence of torn, damaged neck flange with flange eyelets attached to a velcro material and the device with evidence of the cuff airway piece slightly detached from the neck flange.Visual and functional testing was performed.The item was submerged in water to identify any holes in the cuff area or gaps in adhesive that may have led to reported cuff deflation; however no leakage was noted during evaluation despite the observed damage.Of note, the customer photos display use of velcro instead of the supplied twill tape to secure the neck flanges on the devices.It is not possible to determine how the device became damaged, however if the tube does come into contact with a sharp material, such as velcro, it is possible to cause a tear which can propagate further during use.Based on the device analysis, the complaint cannot be confirmed as a manufacturing nonconformance, but is highly probable to have been caused by a variation in user technique.A review of the device history records (dhr) shows there were no observations recorded during manufacture to suggest an issue of this nature would occur with this lot of products.This remediation mdr was generated under protocol (b)(4), as a result of warning letter cms# (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|