|
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. FST FIX FLX REV CRVD INSRTR BNDR CANN ST; SUTURE, NONABSORBABLE, SYNTHETIC, POLYETHYLENE
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
72205325 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
|
| Date of Event |
04/22/2026
|
|
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 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 an arthroscopy with meniscal repair, after the t implants of one (1) fast-fix flex were deployed.During suture tightening, there was unexpected resistance while advancing the suture.A knot pusher was used to achieve the tension, but the suture snapped.Due to the suture failure, the device was deemed non-functional for completion of the repair.The implanted anchor from the initial device remained in situ.Both ts were secure but unable to tighten properly.All t implants were left secure in the patient.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|