Received one trs100sb2 in opened unoriginal packaging.Lot number could not be verified.Performed a visual inspection, the complaint is confirmed.The laceration has a cut appearance as though the device got caught on a sharp object.A two-year lot history review was conducted using the possible lot number provided and found no other similar complaints for this lot number and failure mode.A dhr review of possible lot number provided found no abnormalities that would contribute to this issue.A two-year review of complaint history revealed there has been 16 complaints regarding 19 devices for this device family and failure mode.During the same time frame (b)(4) devices have been manufactured and shipped worldwide.Should all the complaint devices have been found confirmed, the rate of failure would be (b)(4).Per the instructions for use, the user is advised the following; care should be taken when using sharp and electro-surgical devices.This issue will continue to be monitored through the complaint system to assure patient safety.
|
The conmed representative reported on behalf of the facility that the trs100sb2, tissue retrieval system, had an l shaped tear in the bag when the surgical team went to put the specimen in it during a hysterectomy on (b)(6) 2019.The bag was only deployed once, it is unknown if there was any resistance deploying the bag.The bag was being removed through the port with the assistance of a kocher clamp.It is unknown if the bag was inspected prior to use.The procedure was completed with a few minute delay to get another specimen bag.A lot number was provided on the complaint, however, it could not be verified that it was the lot number that was used in the procedure.There was no reported patient injury or impact.This report is being raised based on device malfunction with potential for injury upon reoccurrence.
|