| Model Number |
SELF-PUNCHING TRIPLE LOADED FIBERTAK |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/15/2025
|
|
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 07/16/2025, a sales representative reported via email that an ar-3633sp fibertak sp suture anchor was used for the medial row during a supraspinatus tendon repair arthroscopic procedure on (b)(6) 2025.The anchor pulled out twice during placement, even after being reloaded and reinserted into the same hole in an attempt to set it again.The ar-3650ds drill was used with the orange 3.5 reusable drill guide, and the anchor was placed according to standard technique.Bone quality was moderate.An ar-1927pst-3 anchor was inserted in the same hole to complete the medial fixation.A 10-minute delay occurred.For the lateral row, an ar-2324kbcsp knotless biocomposite swivelock sp anchor was used, and the eyelet fractured through the side upon insertion.A total of three suture tapes were loaded into the eyelet.The hole was pre-punched with the silver punch, and light taps were used to initiate insertion.Bone quality was moderate to hard.An additional ar-2324kbcsp anchor was used to complete the lateral fixation.There was no patient harm reported.Additional information was received on 07/23/2025: the case was delayed a total of ten minutes due to both failed anchors, with ten minutes of additional anesthesia administered.All fragments of the fractured eyelet were retrieved from the patient.No adverse effects reported on or after the surgery.
|
| |
|
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 device (if available and returned), pictures, videos, event description, and any additional information from the field, arthrex was able to conclude the most likely cause.The most likely cause of the reported failure is user error, including improper bone preparation and incorrect surgical technique during device application.These factors may have contributed to the malfunction or compromised the integrity of the implant during the procedure.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
|