SARA 3000

MAUDE Adverse Event Report

MAUDE data represents reports of adverse events involving medical devices. This maude entry was filed from a company representative,user f report with the FDA on 2015-08-11 for SARA 3000 manufactured by Arjohuntleigh Polska Sp. Zo.o..

Event Text Entries

[23153570] (b)(4). Additional information will be provided upon conclusion of the investigation.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10


[23153571] It was reported by the facility that a resident suffered a laceration on their leg due to the leg strap on the sara 3000. This had occurred back in may, there are no records of this by sales, service, or qa. On (b)(6) 2015 (b)(6) - facility representative, called and reported that the laceration on the patient's leg did require sutures. She stated that the straps were put in wrong and twisted and while moving the resident she became combative and the twisted strap lacerated her leg.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5


[40316873] An investigation was performed on this complaint. Arjohuntleigh received a complaint where it was indicated that as the consequence of using the leg fixation belt accessory of sara 3000, the resident suffered a skin laceration that required some sutures. It was reported that at the time of the incident, the belt that supported the resident's lower calves was positioned incorrectly, in a twisted position. Additionally, the behavior of the patient was assessed as "combative". When reviewing similar reportable events for sara 3000 devices and its predecessor, we have not found any case with the similar fault description compared to the one investigated here: the lower leg strap accessory causing the skin injury. According to that this event is considered as a single event. When the event occurred the device was used for treatment of a person, and therefore it played a role in the event. Since despite our best efforts there is no information or indication of any defect, it is assumed that no device failure occurred. From that we (arjohuntleigh) conclude that our device met the manufacturer specification requirements during the time of the issue. Based on the collected information and findings made during re-creation of the event in the laboratory condition, we (arjohuntleigh) have been able to establish that the lower leg strap accessory does not present any risk for user's skin. Additionally upon the course of the investigation, the following was concluded: the position of the lower leg strap belt has no impact of the outcome of the investigation. The incorrect, twisted position of the knee support belt might have influence on the patient comfort. No consequences / injuries observed on person's skin. The position of the strap buckle has no impact of the outcome of the investigation. When the buckle is locked into the strap socket, there is no contact with the patient's body. When the buckle is not applied and under some circumstances are exposed on the user's body, there is no immediate risk found. The buckle does not have any sharp edges. The movement of the user legs have no impact of the outcome of the investigation. Even when the volunteer was moving the legs in the uncontrolled directions, no issue occurred. To sum up, the test results could not re-create the outcome of this customer complaint and event description. It seems that the reported skin laceration, could have only occurred as the result of additional off-label use, such as not correctly evaluating if the patient is suitable for being transferred with this device. Examples of such issues could be a condition of extremely frail skin or a pre-existing patient's leg injury. Following our simulation test, it would appear any injuries would only be considered likely when not following the labelled instructions of how to apply the knee strap, and in addition not taking into consideration if a person is suited for transfer with the device, also as required by the labelling (combativeness, skin condition, pre-existing injuries, etc). In conclusion the device was found to be to specification, it was being used for patient transfer, according to our investigation in a way that is likely to have been without following the instructions for use. As a result the device contributed to the outcome of the event, namely a skin injury on the lower legs. From this evaluation it would appear most likely that the event was caused by the user not following the ifu, due to lack of awareness of the ifu contents. We find this complaint to be reportable to the competent authorities.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10


MAUDE Entry Details

Report Number3007420694-2015-00150
MDR Report Key5003238
Report SourceCOMPANY REPRESENTATIVE,USER F
Date Received2015-08-11
Date of Report2015-09-14
Date Facility Aware2015-07-14
Report Date2015-09-14
Date Reported to FDA2015-09-14
Date Reported to Mfgr2015-08-11
Date Mfgr Received2015-07-14
Date Added to Maude2015-08-14
Event Key0
Report Source CodeManufacturer report
Manufacturer LinkY
Number of Patients in Event0
Adverse Event Flag3
Product Problem Flag3
Reprocessed and Reused Flag3
Health Professional3
Initial Report to FDA3
Report to FDA3
Event Location3
Manufacturer ContactMRS. PAMELA WRIGHT
Manufacturer Street12625 WETMORE, STE 308 STE 308
Manufacturer CitySAN ANTONIO TX 78247
Manufacturer CountryUS
Manufacturer Postal78247
Manufacturer Phone2103170412
Manufacturer G1ARJOHUNTLEIGH POLSKA SP. Z O.O.
Manufacturer StreetKS. PIOTRA WAWRZYNIKA 2
Manufacturer CityKOMORNIKI 62052
Manufacturer CountryPL
Manufacturer Postal Code62052
Single Use3
Previous Use Code3
Event Type3
Type of Report3

Device Details

Brand NameSARA 3000
Generic NameSARA 3000
Product CodeFNG
Date Received2015-08-11
OperatorHEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Device Availability*
Device AgeDA
Device Eval'ed by MfgrR
Device Sequence No1
Device Event Key0
ManufacturerARJOHUNTLEIGH POLSKA SP. ZO.O.
Manufacturer AddressUL. KS. PIOTRA WAWRZYNIAKA 2 KOMORNIKI PL-62052 PL PL-62052


Patients

Patient NumberTreatmentOutcomeDate
101. Hospitalization 2015-08-11

© 2025 FDA.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FDA.