inforMED
MalfunctionHQW

SET MENISCUS MENDER II DISPOSABLE

Received Jan 11, 2021 · Event occurred Dec 23, 2020

Report 1219602-2021-00107 · MDR key 11152575

Device

Generic name

Clip, Tantalum, Ophthalmic

Model number

7209485

Catalog number

7209485

Lot number

2055698

Product problems

  • Break
  • Break

Patient

41 YR

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

Narrative

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

SMITH & NEPHEW IS SUBMITTING THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 21 C.F.R. PART 803. THIS REPORT MAY BE BASED UPON INFORMATION WHICH SMITH & NEPHEW HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE OR VERIFY PRIOR TO THE REQUIRED REPORTING DATE. THIS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT A CONCLUSION BY FDA, SMITH & NEPHEW, OR ITS EMPLOYEES, THAT THE REPORT CONSTITUTES AN ADMISSION THAT THE DEVICE, SMITH & NEPHEW OR ITS EMPLOYEES CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE POTENTIAL EVENT DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. INTERNAL COMPLAINT REFERENCE (B)(4).

Description of Event or Problem

IT WAS REPORTED THAT, DURING SURGERY, THE "MENISCUS MENDER II (DISPOSABLE SET)" HAD QUALITY ISSUES, THE SURGICAL STAFF HAD ISSUES GETTING THE NEEDLES OUT OF THE PLASTIC FORMS THEY COME IN. A PICTURE PROVIDED SHOWS A BREAKAGE/DISASSEMBLY BETWEEN HEAD(LOOP) AND SHAFT (MENISCAL MENDER). THE PROCEDURE WAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED WITHOUT DELAY SIGNIFICANT USING A BACK-UP DEVICE. NO PATIENT INJURIES 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

H10, H3,H6: THE REPORTED DEVICE, USED IN TREATMENT, WAS NOT RETURNED TO THE DESIGNATED COMPLAINT UNIT FOR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION, THUS VISUAL INSPECTION AND FUNCTIONAL TESTING COULD NOT BE PERFORMED. THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP FOUND BETWEEN THE RETURNED DEVICE AND THE REPORTED INCIDENT. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CUSTOMER PROVIDED IMAGES CONFIRMED THAT THE MENISCAL LOOP SUTURE DEVICES HAD DETACHED FROM THEIR HANDLES. A REVIEW OF THE DEVICE RECORDS SHOWED THERE WERE NO INDICATIONS TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRODUCT DID NOT MEET MANUFACTURING SPECIFICATION OR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PERFORM AS INTENDED. A COMPLAINT HISTORY REVIEW CONCLUDED THIS WAS A REPEAT ISSUE. THE COMPLAINT WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ROOT CAUSE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVICE DESIGN.