| Model Number |
MAX-A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adhesive Too Strong (4071)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Skin Inflammation/ Irritation (4545)
|
| Date of Event |
06/12/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The investigation is currently in progress.The investigation results will be submitted in a supplemental mdr.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that xeroform gauze was used to treat a wound that resulted during patient discharge when the complaint device's sticky adhesive pulled/tugged on the patient skin, ripping a piece of their skin off with the complaint device right under the nail.There was no other patient injury, medical intervention, or extended procedure time reported.These are commonly used devices that are readily available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updates to: g3, g6, h2, h6, and h10.The received medical opinion, obtained on (b)(6), 2023, holds that the reported event falls into a description of s2 injuries at most.Additionally, the medical opinion holds that the reported treatment was not required to prevent a permanent impairment or loss of function, but rather to help expedite the recovery process or administered as standard preventative care.Therefore, this event is no longer considered mdr-reportable.The investigation is currently in progress.The investigation results will be submitted in a supplemental mdr.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that xeroform gauze was used to treat a wound that resulted during patient discharge when the complaint device's sticky adhesive pulled/tugged on the patient skin, ripping a piece of their skin off with the complaint device right under the nail.There was no other patient injury, medical intervention, or extended procedure time reported.These are commonly used devices that are readily available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that xeroform gauze was used to treat a wound that resulted during patient discharge when the complaint device's sticky adhesive pulled/tugged on the patient skin, ripping a piece of their skin off with the complaint device right under the nail.There was no other patient injury, medical intervention, or extended procedure time reported.These are commonly used devices that are readily available.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device was returned to stryker sustainability solutions for evaluation.Upon inspection of the received complaint device, evidence of clinical use was identified.Evidence of tissue on the sticky side was identified.The sensor/led was aligned with the primary tape per the acceptance criteria.Inspection of the device revealed exposed wires near the tap.The connector and pins appeared to be intact.Inspection of the primary tape found adhesive to be present and was sticky to the touch but not abnormally sticky.The results of the visual inspection determined that the reported event was confirmed.A review of the dhr supports that the device met all inspection and test criteria prior to release from stryker.Therefore, the most likely root cause is applicator error; applied to potentially previously compromised site (skin damage present); applied too tightly.The instructions for use (ifu) state: nspect the sensor site periodically to ensure correct sensor alignment and adhesion.Do not attempt to repair, modify or clean sensor.Application of sensor to a site that is too thick, thin or deeply pigmented.Venous pulsations if the sensor or supplemental tape is wrapped too tightly.Excessive motion.Locate sensor at a stationary site and try to keep patient still.The reported event will continue to be monitored through post-market surveillance.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|