|
It was reported that a patient underwent an unknown procedure on (b)(6) 2024 and suture was used.Before use on the patient, the needle comes loose from thread.The product received for analysis was identified as product code 8833h.Visual inspection and metallurgical analysis were performed on the returned product.A fracture was observed at the suture attachment of the needle.The needle was received in two pieces, only one of the mating fracture surfaces was examined for this evaluation.The needle was noted with marks that appears to be by surgical instrument.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 the sample revealed the fracture was composed of microvoid coalescence, which is evidence of a ductile fracture mode.Mechanical damage observed coincidental to the fracture provide additional evidence that the failure was induced by mechanical deformation leading to ductile overload.This was a ductile fracture.The evidence of this examination indicates that the breakage occurred at the attachment area of the needle during use due to tensile overload.There were no adverse consequences reported.Additional information was requested.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).H3 investigation summary: the product was returned to ethicon for evaluation.Seventeen representative unopened samples and two empty opened overwrap packets were received for analysis.Product code 8833h.The complaint sample was not received for evaluation.Upon initial inspection of the samples, no external damages were observed on the external packets.As per the sampling plan, a visual inspection was performed on thirteen samples.The packets were opened, and the swage and attachment area were noted to be as expected.The sutures were dispensed without problems and examined along the strand to detect any issue related no defects were observed during evaluation.A functional test was performed using instron equipment and the pull force result was above the minimum requirements.The event described could not be confirmed as the device performed without any defect noted.As part of the ethicon quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.There may have been other circumstances or issues that occurred during the use of the device that we were unable to duplicate during our laboratory analysis.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-conformances were identified.H3 investigation summary: the product received for analysis was identified as product code 8833h.Visual inspection and metallurgical analysis were performed on the returned product.A fracture was observed at the suture attachment of the needle.The needle was received in two pieces, only one of the mating fracture surfaces was examined for this evaluation.The needle was noted with marks that appears to be by surgical instrument.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 the sample revealed the fracture was composed of microvoid coalescence, which is evidence of a ductile fracture mode.Mechanical damage observed coincidental to the fracture provide additional evidence that the failure was induced by mechanical deformation leading to ductile overload.This was a ductile fracture.The evidence of this examination indicates that the breakage occurred at the attachment area 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.
|