| Catalog Number |
ASH4250-01 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/14/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).This complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a product problem associated with a smith+nephew device.The reported problem relates to known inherent device and/or procedural risks that are appropriately documented in our risk files.Smith+nephew will continue to monitor trends in accordance with our post-market surveillance process and take necessary action as required if anticipated severity and/or occurrence rates are exceeded.Smith+nephew has no reason to suspect that the product failed to meet any specifications at the time of manufacture.Based on our review of all currently available information, we are unable to identify a definitive root cause.However, as the use of our product cannot be excluded as a potential cause or contributory factor to the reported issue, we are conservatively submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional investigative findings or information becomes available that alter the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, during a procedure, the front end of a super turbovac wand came off.The procedure was resumed, using an equivalent s+n back-up.It is unknown if there was a surgical delay.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that, during a shoulder joint surgery, the front end of a super turbovac wand came off.The piece was removed from the patient using suction.The procedure was resumed, after a non-significant delay, using an equivalent s+n back-up.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).Additional information: b5, h6 and h11(roi).H11: a device deficiency was not identified, and the root cause of the reported event could not be determined since the device was not returned for evaluation.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found similar reported events.A risk management review found that the reported failure and/or harm was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.Please refer to the instructions for use for precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.If any additional information related to this event is received in the future, this investigation will be reopened for further assessment.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: h2: corrected information on: e1 (initial reporter name and address), g4 (510k) and h6 (health effect - impact code).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported device was received for evaluation.A visual inspection revealed no manufacturing abnormalities.Product was out of the original packaging.No packaging returned.The cable has been cut from the device.The tip is worn from use.The electrode is missing from the spacer of the device and only a stand remains.A functional evaluation could not be performed on the returned device due to its cut cable.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.A complaint history review found similar reported events.A risk management review found that the reported failure and/or harm was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.The root cause of the reported event could not be determined since findings cannot lead to a clear cause of the reported event.Factors that could have contributed to the failure include procedural variance, or deviations from established protocols, increasing risks and leading to unintended consequences (using the wand above default output settings, thus causing the electrodes to become eroded extensively or pressing the tip against hard or bony surfaces).Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|