|
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.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot, and no non-conformances were identified.H3 investigation summary: the product received for analysis was vcp416h 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 19, 2025.The component was identified as product code vcp416h.It was requested that hsa assess the fracture mode of the failure.A fracture was observed in 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 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.
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent an unknown procedure in 2025 and suture was used.The device was received with no complaint information.Attempts were made to reconcile the device with no success resulting in the creation of a new complaint.Upon evaluation of the returned device, a fracture was observed in 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.No adverse patient consequences were reported.No additional information was provided.
|