|
DEPUY MITEK LLC US VAPR S90 W/ HAND CONTROLS; ELECTROSURGICAL, CUTTING & COAGULATION & ACCESSORIES
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
228370 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Electrical /Electronic Property Problem (1198)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
05/20/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a shoulder arthroscopy surgical procedure it was observed that the vapr s90 w/ hand controls electrode device generated sparks.It was reported that the device was not used on the patient.Another device was used to complete the surgery.There were no adverse consequences to the patient.No additional information could be provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.H11 additional narrative: as of this date, the device has not been returned for evaluation; therefore, the reported condition cannot be confirmed and/or duplicated.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.H11 additional narrative: d9, h3, h6: the actual device has been returned and is currently pending evaluation.Once reliability engineering evaluates the device, a supplemental medwatch report will be sent accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by depuy mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, depuy mitek, 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 medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.H11 additional narrative: the product was returned to j&j medtech orthopaedics for evaluation.Visual inspection of the returned device found one portion of the manifold charred and the electrode not centered at its intended position.No other anomalies were noted.A functional test was unable to be performed due to the post-manufacturing damage.Device will be sent to the supplier for further investigation.The manufacturer inspection revealed the following conditions on the device surface: the original packaging was not returned for evaluation; the tip components were used and had some visible damage on the lower manifold; there was visible tissue within the active tip; the handle assembly, cable & plug assembly were in good and used condition and no misuse patterns were observed on them; and there were minor scuffs on the cable.During testing, the manufacturer was able to confirm a fault with the device, as the visible damage to the lower manifold and activation tests confirmed that arcs (sparks) were visible during ablate function tests.The complaint device failed both electrical (hipot active: return) and functional (output short displayed) testing.Based on the evidence of the damaged section of the lower manifold seen for the returned electrode, the likely cause of this failure is shorting at distal tip.The failure mode seen is consistent with previous s90 handswitching/one piece lps electrodes which exhibit similar failure modes including output shorting, manifold melting, sparking and arcing during a surgical procedure and have been further investigated through a supplier capa.To eliminate recurrence of this failure mode a design change has been required.The overall complaint was confirmed as the observed condition of the vapr s90 w/ hand controls would have contributed to the complained device issue.Based on the information currently available, a product issue was identified during the investigation of the sample received and attributed to a design error.This product issue will be addressed through atl uk quality system.Furthermore, for the scuffs on cable and the foreign matter observed on the active tip, potential cause can be traced to handling/care of the device or procedural variables.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.Device history review: a manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device, and no non-conformances nor manufacturing irregularities were identified.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|