| Catalog Number |
Y398H |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
| Date of Event |
05/14/2018
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).The device history records were reviewed and the manufacturing criteria was met prior to the release of this lot.Attempts have been made to retrieve the device.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.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.How was the needle piece removed? were x-rays taken to locate the needle piece(s)? was the patient brought back to or to have needle removed or was the needle removed during the initial procedure? was there any additional tissue damage as a result of searching for the needle piece? what was the size of the needle used? what was the size of the needle that broke off into the patient? was more than half the needle retained in the patient?.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent a c-section on (b)(6) 2018 and suture was used.During the procedure, while suturing unknown tissue, unknown loop, the tip of the needle broke off.The tip was retrieved from the patient.Another like device was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient consequences reported.Additional information has been requested.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Summary: the actual device was returned for evaluation.A fracture was observed at the tip of the needle.The needle was received in two pieces, only one of the mating fracture surfaces was examined for this evaluation.A microscope was used to examine the fracture surfaces and surrounding area of the needle.The fracture surfaces were examined in multiple locations in order to determine the fracture mode.The evaluation revealed the fracture was composed of microvoid coalescence, which is evidence of a ductile overload failure.Mechanical damage observed coincidental to the fracture provides additional evidence that the failure was induced by mechanical deformation leading to ductile overload.This was a ductile fracture.The evidence of this examination indicates that the breakage occurred at the tip of the needle during use due to tensile overload.There is no evidence of any material flaw or defect that would cause premature failure.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|