|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. TWINFIX ULTRA PK 5.5MM BLUE/WHTE & BLUE; FASTENER, FIXATION, BIODEGRADABLE, SOFT TISSUE
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
72203104 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Difficult to Insert (1316)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Perforation (2001)
|
| Date of Event |
08/01/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during an arthroscopy, once the dictated anchor site was prepared, the twinfix ultra peek anchor was inserted and failed to be fully inserted.They had difficulty removing the anchor, and it fractured; everything was removed.The procedure was completed using a s+n back up device in a new drilled bone hole.There was a delay of less than 30 minutes.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: this complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a patient complication related to a product problem with a smith+nephew device.The reported issue(s) relate to known inherent device and/or procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3, h6> the reported device was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation.However an image evaluation was performed and found two pictures of the upper part of the device.The anchor is broken into two pieces, with one piece still in the inserter.The sutures are attached to the broken tip of the anchor.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found no similar reported events.A risk management review found that the reported failure and/or harm was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.A review of the material specifications found that tensile strength requirements are specified.A material certificate of analysis (coa) is required for raw material.The root cause of the reported event could not be determined since findings cannot lead to a clear cause of the reported event.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include excessive force on the device, excessive torque on the device, attempted correction of a damaged device, off-axis insertion, improper preparation of the insertion site, or an inadvertent impact event inconsistent with normal use.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|