| Model Number |
SUTR ANCH,PEEK P-LCK,2.9X 12.5MM |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Material Split, Cut or Torn (4008)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Insufficient Information (4580); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
06/03/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On 06/04/2025, a sales representative reported via email an issue involving an ar-2923ps peek pushlock sl anchor.The anchor was loaded with two tails of #2 fiberwire, which had been passed around the labrum.Following the creation of a pilot hole using the drill and guide from an ar-1926ds, the instruments were removed, and the anchor was inserted through a gemini cannula in the anteroinferior portal.As the pushlock was advanced into the joint and tension applied to approximate the labral tissue to the eyelet, the eyelet broke off the tip of the pushlock, rendering it unusable.The case was delayed by approximately 10 minutes to troubleshoot the issue with the anchor and subsequent devices before switching to fibertak anchors to complete the procedure.This was discovered during a procedure on (b)(6) 2025.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation is in process.A follow-up report will be provided upon availability of additional information.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: b5, g3, h3, h6.Investigation is in process.A follow-up report will be provided upon availability of additional information.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information was received on 06/25/2025: this occurred during a bankart repair procedure on (b)(6) 2025.All fragments were retrieved.The case was completed utilizing an ar-3636 instead of the pushlock.The case was delayed 5-7 minutes, which required additional anesthesia in that timeframe.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: g3, h3, h6.Complaint allegation is not confirmed.Based on the information provided which may include the device (if available and returned), pictures, videos, event description, and any additional information from the field, arthrex was able to conclude a most likely cause.The most likely cause for the reported failure can be attributed to normal wear and tear due to repeated use of the device in the field.Manufacturing date 2021.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Corrected additional information: h6 - investigation findings complaint allegation is confirmed by the attached picture, which shows the implant (eyelet) was broken off.Based on the information provided which may include the device (if available and returned), pictures, videos, event description, and any additional information from the field, arthrex was able to conclude a most likely cause.The most likely cause of the reported failure can be attributed to user error of the device due to misalignment insertion, and/or prying/leveraging of the device during insertion.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|