| Catalog Number |
72201494 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Firing Problem (4011)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/07/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H3, h6: this complaint was opened by smith+nephew to document a product problem associated with a smith+nephew device.The reported problem relates to known risks with the device itself or with its use 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 submitting this report in accordance with applicable regulations.If additional investigative findings or information becomes available that alters the conclusions of this report, a follow-up report will be submitted as required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a meniscus repair, when t1 was fired from one (1) ultra fast fix, both ts came out.The procedure was resumed, after a non significant delay, using an equivalent s+n back up.Additional anesthesia was not required as consequence of the surgical prolongation.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: h2: additional information on: b5 & h6 (impact code).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a meniscus repair, when t1 was fired from one (1) ultra fast fix, both ts came out.T1 was deployed through the meniscus.Both ts were removed with tweezers.The patient's status is fine.The procedure was resumed, after a non significant delay, using an equivalent s+n back up.Additional anesthesia was not required as consequence of the surgical prolongation.No further complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H11.H3, h6: the reported device was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation.However, an image evaluation was performed and found 3 ultra fast-fix ab assembly - curved.Only two of them appeared complete in the picture.One of them had the sutures with the implants attached outside the needle.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 could not be determined since findings cannot lead to a clear cause of the reported event.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include an unintended second actuation of the device or excessive retraction of the device causing t2 to be pulled from the needle based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: internal complaint reference (b)(4).H3, h6: the reported device was received for evaluation.A visual evaluation showed the device was returned in original packaging with the batch number of the complaint on the label.The t1, t2, and suture were returned on the distal end of the needle.The variable depth straw has been trimmed.An image evaluation was performed and found 3 ultra fast-fix ab assembly - curved.Only two of them appeared complete in the picture.One of them had the sutures with the implants attached outside the needle.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.A definitive root cause for the reported issue could not be determined.Factors that could have contributed to the failure include procedural variance, or deviations from established protocols, increasing risks and leading to unintended consequences (an unintended second actuation of the device or excessive retraction of the device causing t2 to be pulled from the needle).Based on this investigation, the need for corrective action is not indicated.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|