|
|
| Model Number |
7205327 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Insufficient Device Problem Information (3190)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Burn(s) (1757)
|
| Date of Event |
11/12/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that at the end of a shoulder arthroscopy, it was noticed that the acromionizer appeared to leave a burn on the patient at the entry site of the burr.The procedure had already been completed without delay using the same device.No patient injury or other complications were reported.All available information has been disclosed.If additional information should become available, a supplemental report will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
One 7205327 disposable 5.5mm ep-1 acromionizer blade used for treatment, was returned for evaluation.Overheating or melted blade conditions are consistent with being tested or run without or with inadequate suction and irrigation.Sufficient cooling and suction adjustments are operator responsibility.Per instructions for use irreversible damage may occur to blades or burrs if they are run without the flow of irrigation (dry).Periodic irrigation of the blade is recommended to provide adequate cooling of the blade and to prevent accumulation of excised materials in the surgical site.Ensure that suction of 128 mmhg minimum is flowing while the instrument is running.Irreversible damage to blades or burrs will result if they are run without the flow of irrigation (dry).Nor is it intended to be engaged without suction.Blue debris from the product was noted where the sluff chamber and adapter body began to melt as well as down between the blade components toward the distal tip.All blades require sufficient cooling as a necessary consideration.The sales representative relayed that post procedure, the surgeon agreed what most likely occurred was ¿he was not allowing the suction to pull enough fluid through the burr while he was working.¿ the prior sentence confirms user responsibility.(in addition, the ¿probable root cause¿ was documented as ¿user error¿.) product met specifications upon release to distribution.Complaint history review indicated no similar allegations for the lot number reported.Batch review did not indicate a condition or product/procedure failure that supported the allegation.No root cause related to the manufacturing of the device was established.Risk management reviewed the failure mode analysis for inclusion of this failure.Based on the information provided the root cause of the reported patient burn was likely due to a user vs procedural event.The patient impact beyond the reported events cannot be determined.No further investigation required at this time.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|