|
ETHICON INC. SFXSYM PDS+ UNI VIO 24IN 1 SA CT-1; SUTURE, SURGICAL, ABSORBABLE, POLYDIOXANONE
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
SXPP1A443 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/12/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Date sent to the fda: 12/11/2025.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.Additional information was requested; the following was obtained: when did the alleged deficiency occur (removal from package / during handling prior to use on patient/ during passage through tissue / during tying / post-op)? if different, please explain.Unk please perform and document the follow up attempt for product return.Please document the shipment tracking number in notes or rmao sections.We regularly contact with sale rep about the device returning.Please provide the title of external person providing answers to follow-up (e.G.Nurse, surgeon, risk manager).(b)(6).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.D4: udi: as the lot number for the device involved in the event was not provided, the full udi is currently not available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent an unknown procedure on (b)(6) 2025 and barbed suture was used.During an unknown open surgery and wound closure, the needle tip was broken, but the needle tip could also be retrieved without remaining no pieces in the patient¿s body.It was not a control release needle.Another product was used to complete the case.There were no adverse consequences to the patient.Additional information was requested.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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 sxpp1a443 visual inspection and metallurgical analysis were performed on the returned product.A failed suture needle, labeled as (b)(4), was submitted to herrera, stafford and associates, llc (hsa) for fractographic evaluation on december 19, 2025.The component was identified as product code sxpp1a443.It was requested that hsa assess the fracture mode of the failure.A fracture was observed at the body 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, a cup-and-cone shaped fracture and macroscopic plastic deformation 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|