BIOPSYBELL BONE MARROW MSC ASPIRATION KIT-MARROW-STEMRecalls & reported problems
Biopsybell Srl · ASPIRATION/EXPLANT OF BONE MARROW THROUGH A PISTON SYRINGE · Class 2
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 1
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 1
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 1 adverse event report that list this exact device (DI 08033860036317), received between Jan 15, 2026 and Jan 15, 2026 — classified as 1 injury.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (1 report).
Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.
Reports received per month
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Break1
Patient problems
- Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque1
Recent adverse event reports
The 1 most recent of 1 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryJan 15, 2026Break
IN DATE (B)(6) 2025 OUR DISTRIBUTOR (B)(4) IN THE PERSON OF (B)(6) NOTIFIED OUR CUSTOMER CARE ABOUT AN EVENT OCCURRED WITH A BIOPSYBELL'S NEEDLE BROKEN INTO A PATIENT (TIP OF THE NEEDLE BROKEN). IN DATE 18 DEC 2025 WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THE SAME PERSON: " BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME, THE FRAGMENT REMAINS WITHIN THE PATIENT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPORTS OF IMMEDIATE PATIENT HARM, AND THERE IS CURRENTLY NO INDICATION OF MIGRATION; THE FRAGMENT APPEARS TO. BE SECURELY EMBEDDED. THIS ASSESSMENT REMAINS UNDER EVALUATION. WE ARE IN ACTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH BOTH THE SURGEON AND THE HOSPITAL. AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE, I HAVE OFFERED TO RETRIEVE THE ENTIRE LOT, ALTHOUGH THIS IS BEING PRESENTED AS AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION RATHER THAN AN INDICATION OF A BROADER ISSUE. ALL PARTIES HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS APPEARS TO. BE AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. THE SURGEON HAS BEEN VERY REASONABLE AND HAS CHARACTERIZED THE EVENT AS AN UNUSUAL, UNFORESEEN OCCURRENCE DURING THE EXTRACTION PROCESS. IN THE SAME DAY WE RECEIVED THE FILLED FORM REPORT FROM THE HOSPITAL. IN THIS FORM SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WERE INCLUDED: NAME OF THE PERSON WHO REPORTED THE COMPLAINT: (B)(
Patient problems: Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque
MAUDE report 24077672 ↗
Other Instrument, Biopsy devices
- MAX-CORE MC1616Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall4,258 reports
- ENCOR® ECP017GSenorx, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall4,186 reports
- MAX-CORE MC1820Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall2,404 reports
- MAX-CORE MC1816Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall1 death848 reports
- MAX-CORE MC1410Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall399 reports
- MAX-CORE MC1610Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY1 recall394 reports
- ENCOR® ECP0110GVSenorx, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY392 reports
- ENCOR® ECP0110GSenorx, Inc. · INSTRUMENT, BIOPSY390 reports
Sources and updates
- Device record: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026 · View this device in AccessGUDID ↗
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026 · each report above links to its original FDA record
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 18, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page