|
ETHICON INC. SFXSYM PDS+ UNI VIO 24IN 1 SA CT; SUTURE, SURGICAL, ABSORBABLE, POLYDIOXANONE
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
SXPP1A444 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
01/14/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent an unknown procedure on (b)(6) 2026 and barbed suture was used.Approximately 3 mm of suture tip from suture broke off intra-operatively.No foreign body detected using x-ray.There were no patient consequences reported.Additional information was requested.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint #(b)(4) date sent to the fda: 2/11/2026.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.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot, and no non-conformances were identified.Additional information was requested, the following: 1.Which part broke? was it the suture (the thread) or the needle that was broken? ans: 3mm suture needle tip 2.If the issue concerns the needle: 1.Did the needle fall into the patient? 2.If yes: was the needle piece(s) retrieved during the same procedure? ans: surgeon did they best to remove and no foreign body detected using x ray, please see letter attached.Defective product has been collected and dropped at ascent office level 5 for further investigation.What measures were implemented to retrieve the broken piece? ans: measures was not specified, no foreign body detected in patient body using x ray after case.Was there any additional tissue damage resulting from the search for the needle piece? ans: unknown, not specified.Please provide the source or name of person providing answers to follow-up questions (not the person relaying/submitting answers to loc or chu) on dd mmm yyyy or provided from knowledge as you were present in the case? (b)(6) (nurse clinician).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 Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Date sent to the fda: 3/23/2026.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: d9, h3, h6.H3 investigational summary: the product received for analysis was sxpp1a444.Visual inspection and metallurgical analysis were performed on the returned product.A failed suture needle was submitted for fractographic evaluation.The component was identified as product code sxpp1a444.It was requested that hsa assess the fracture mode of the failure.A fracture was observed at the tip of the needle.One side of the needle was received; the mating fracture surface was not provided for this evaluation.A scanning electron microscope 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 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.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post-market surveillance.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|