|
|
| Model Number |
FIBERLOCK SUSPENSION SYSTEM |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
06/19/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation is in process.A follow-up report will be provided upon availability of additional information.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2025, a sales representative reported via email that an ar-8988-cp fiberlock suspension implant kit had an issue during use.While anchoring the initial 3.5 sl component, the implant failed.A second 3.5 sl was opened as a replacement, but during tensioning into the bone, both the fiberlock implant and the replacement 3.5 sl failed.As a result, they discontinued using the fiberlock system and completed the procedure using an ar-8919ds implant system, cmc mini tightrope instead.This was discovered during a cmc procedure on (b)(6) 2025, with no reported patient harm.Additional information has been requested on 07/01/2025.There was never a second fiberlock implant kit opened.Only a second 3.5 swivelock after the first 3.5 swivelock failed in the thumb.They used a cmc tightrope to finish the repair, because the fiberlock implant pulled through the first met.They believe the patient's bone wasn't very strong, but the second failed because the eyelet broke after trying to reset.It was reported that all the instruments used for this were provided in the kit and used correctly.The patient did not experience any harm, nor was there negative impact on the patient.Additional information was been requested on 07/09/2025 for 3.5 swivelock information.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: g3, h3, h6.The complaint device was not received for evaluation.Based on the information provided, which may include the returned device (if available), photographs, videos, event descriptions, and additional field data, arthrex was able to determine the most likely cause of the reported issue.The most likely cause(s) for the reported failure can be attributed to user error, improper bone preparation, misaligned insertion, or excessive forces through leveraging/prying the device.The complaint allegation could not be confirmed, as the device was not received for evaluation, and no evidence of the reported failure was provided.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|