|
Product complaint # (b)(4) this report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803, part 4 subpart b.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, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, ethicon, 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.Attempts have been made to retrieve the device.To date the device has not been returned.If the device or further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained via: were there any unexpected outcomes or complications resulting from the prolonged surgery time? no.Which tissue was being sutured when the event occurred? was additional dissection required in other organs/tissues other than the target tissue? no.Was there any change in the patient¿s post operative care due to the prolonged procedure? not that i am aware of was the needle piece(s) retrieved during the same procedure? yes were x-rays taken to locate the needle piece(s)? no.What measures were implemented to retrieve the broken piece? broke in two pieces.Was removed using the needle holder.Was there any additional tissue damage resulting from the search for the needle piece? no.Could you please provide the lot number? lot number could not be captured could you kindly perform and document the follow-up attempt for the product return? furthermore, please ensure that the shipment tracking number is recorded in the notes or rmao sections.Please provide the source or name of person providing answers to follow-up questions: (b)(6).What is the product return status? suture will be returned soon.The manufacturing records could not be reviewed as the batch/lot number is unknown.Additional h11: if other, describe lap.Rectopexie, was surgery delayed due to the reported event? no, if yes, number of minutes: 2, was procedure successfully completed? yes, were fragments generated? no, if yes, were they removed easily without additional intervention? unknown, patient status/ outcome / consequences no, was other medical intervention (e.G.X-rays, additional procedures, prescriptions, otc, revision) required: unknown, is the patient part of a clinical study unknown, (b)(4), device property of none, device in possession of none.D4: udi: as the lot number for the device involved in the event was not provided, the full udi is currently not available.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).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.Additional information: h6, d9, h3.H3 investigation summary: the product received for analysis was 628h visual inspection and metallurgical analysis were performed on the returned product.A failed suture needle, labeled as (b)(4), was submitted to (b)(6) for fractographic evaluation on november 26, 2025.The component was identified as product code 628h.It was requested that hsa assess the fracture mode of the failure.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.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 (b)(4) 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.
|