CORFLO Enteral Feeding TubeRecalls & reported problems across all models
Corpak Medsystems, Inc. · 14 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 35
- Deaths reported
- 1
- Injuries reported
- 1
- Recalls
- 0
We found 14 models of CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube by Corpak Medsystems, Inc. in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 35 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Mar 15, 2017 and Feb 10, 2022 — classified as 1 death, 1 injury, 33 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (23 reports).
Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event. Widely used products collect more reports, so totals can't be used to compare products or estimate failure rates. Only reports that name a model's exact device identifier are counted. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works
Most reported CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube problems
Device problems
- Break23
- Crack3
- Complete Blockage2
- Material Fragmentation2
- Material Split, Cut or Torn2
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
- Burst Container or Vessel1
- Defective Component1
Patient problems
- No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient12
- Foreign Body In Patient8
- Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque7
- No Consequences Or Impact To Patient3
- Vomiting2
- Death1
- Insufficient Information1
- No Code Available1
CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube models
14 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-9368TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)9 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-9366TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)5 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 40-7438TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)4 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-2438TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)3 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-9361TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)3 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-7366TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)2 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-7558TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)2 reports
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 40-8366TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 40-9368TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 40-9551TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 death1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-1365TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-7361TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-7368TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
- CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube 42-9558TUBES, GASTROINTESTINAL (AND ACCESSORIES)1 report
Recent CORFLO Enteral Feeding Tube adverse event reports
The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
MalfunctionFeb 10, 2022Defective Component
NOTICEABLE DEFECT IN FEEDING TUBE SHOWED UP ON X-RAY. FIRST THOUGHT TO BE KINK THEN APPEARED TO BE A FRACTURE. ENTERIC TUBE REMOVED, FOUND TO BE INTACT, BUT LARGE WEAK SPOT/BALLOONING NOTED NEAR DISTAL END. A NEW FEEDING TUBE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PLACED. THIS TUBE WAS IN AN INFANT. PICTURES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. THE TUBE COULD HAVE RUPTURED AND PORTION BEEN RETAINED IN THE STOMACH, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ENDOSCOPY OR SURGERY FOR RETRIEVAL. AVANOS HAS BEEN CONTACTED REGARDING ISSUE. HAVE NOT RECEIVED RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS YET BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL PRODUCT REPORTS ISSUED ON THIS PRODUCT.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 13505575 ↗MalfunctionJul 28, 2020Material Split, Cut or Torn; Material Split, Cut or Torn
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE WEIGHTED END OF THE NG [NASOGASTRIC] TUBE HAD "BROKEN OFF." THE TUBE WAS REMOVED INCLUDING THE WEIGHTED PART "WHICH WAS STILL ATTACHED BY THE SMALLEST MARGIN." NO PATIENT INJURY WAS REPORTED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 13-JULY-2020 INDICATED THAT "NJ [NASOJEJUNAL] TUBE PASSED ON A PATIENT THAT REQUIRED NJ FEEDING. ON X-RAY TO CONFIRM TUBE POSITION IT SHOWED THAT THE 4.5CM OF TUBE BELOW THE WEIGHTED PART HAD BROKEN. NJ TUBE REMOVED ONCE PATIENT BACK FROM X-RAY. THE BROKEN PART OF THE TUBE WAS HANGING ON BY A THREAD. NIL PART OF THE TUBE REMAINED IN THE PATIENT." PATIENT REQUIRED ANOTHER NJ TUBE TO BE PASSED AND THEREFORE A FURTHER X-RAY TO CONFIRM POSITION.
Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient
MAUDE report 10335041 ↗MalfunctionJun 25, 2020Complete Blockage; Material Fragmentation; Complete Blockage; Material Fragmentation
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF A BLOCKED TUBE. UPON REMOVAL OF THE TUBE, IT WAS FOUND TO BE BROKEN AT THE 34CM MARKER. THERE WAS NO INJURY TO THE PATIENT. PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 23 JUN 2020, THE DEVICE FRAGMENT WAS REMOVED BY FIBROSCOPY.
Patient problems: Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque
MAUDE report 10196570 ↗MalfunctionFeb 25, 2020Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NASOGASTRIC (NG) TUBE WAS INSERTED INTO AN INFANT PATIENT DIAGNOSED WITH FOOD INTOLERANCE AND GASTRO-OESOPHAGEAL REFLUX. THE TUBE WAS INSERTED TO 20CM AND PLACEMENT WAS CONFIRMED VIA ACIDIC ASPIRATE. OVERNIGHT THE TUBE ADVANCED BY 2CM, THREE TIMES. AN X-RAY ON (B)(6) 2020 CONFIRMED THAT THE TUBE HAD BROKEN IN THE PATIENT'S STOMACH. PATIENT HAS FAMILY HISTORY PYLORIC STENOSIS. THIS WAS CONFIRMED IN THE PATIENT VIA ULTRASOUND. BROKEN PIECE WAS RETRIEVED AT THE TIME OF THE PYLOROMYOTOMY VIA SMALL GASTROSTOMY. PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 11 FEB 2020, THE PATIENT HAD BEEN SCHEDULED TO HAVE A PYLOROMYOTOMY ANYWAY, AND AN ADDITIONAL SMALL PROCEDURE (GASTROSTOMY) WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE THE BROKEN PIECE OF NG TUBE. THE PATIENT HAS SINCE FULLY RECOVERED FROM THE OPERATION.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient
MAUDE report 9751890 ↗MalfunctionFeb 19, 2020Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT'S NASOJEJUNAL FEEDING TUBE BALLOONED IN THE NOSTRIL. IT WAS LEFT IN PLACE, UNUSED, UNTIL REPLACEMENT COULD BE PERFORMED. HOWEVER, ONCE REMOVED IN RADIOLOGY, IT WAS FOUND THE TUBE HAD BROKEN AND APPROXIMATELY 30CM OF TUBING REMAINED IN THE PATIENT. THE FRAGMENT WAS REMOVED ENDOSCOPICALLY. IT WAS NOTED IN THE PATIENT'S NOTES THAT THE TUBE HAD BLOCKED ON (B)(6) 2020, BUT THE NURSE HAD USED A SMALL ENTERAL SYRINGE TO FLUSH AND REMOVE THE BLOCK. THERE WAS NOTHING NOTABLE ABOUT THE PATIENT'S CONDITION FOLLOWING THE ENDOSCOPIC REMOVAL.
Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient
MAUDE report 9726547 ↗MalfunctionOct 17, 2019Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE NASOGASTRIC (NG) TUBE BROKE INSIDE THE PATIENT. THE PATIENT VOMITED AND HALF OF THE TUBE CAME OUT IN THE VOMIT AND THE REMAINDER WAS STILL ATTACHED TO THE TUBE TAPED TO THE PATIENT'S FACE. THE TUBE HAD BEEN IN PLACE ONE WEEK. PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 7 OCT 2019, NO PIECE OF TUBE WAS LEFT BEHIND IN THE PATIENT, AND NO FOOD WENT INTO THE PATIENT'S LUNGS. THE PATIENT WAS OK AFTER THE INCIDENT. THE PATIENT HAS NEUROBLASTOMA AND WAS BEING TREATED FOR FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA. THE PATIENT WAS RECEIVING INTRAVENOUS ANTIBIOTICS. THE TUBE HAD BEEN INSERTED A WEEK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT PER THE PATIENT'S FATHER. THERE WAS NO NEED TO RETRIEVE ANY PART FROM INSIDE THE PATIENT AND SHE VOMITED THE LOWER SECTION OUT INTO A BOWL. AND THE REMAINDER WAS PULLED OUT FROM HER NOSE. THIS PATIENT ALSO HAS AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH OESOPHAGEAL STRICTURES, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON THE NG TUBE HAD BEEN PLACED.
Patient problems: Vomiting
MAUDE report 9204902 ↗MalfunctionOct 8, 2019Break; Break
AVANOS MEDICAL INC. RECEIVED A SINGLE REPORT THAT REFERENCED TWO DIFFERENT INCIDENCES, WHICH WERE ASSOCIATED WITH SEPARATE UNITS, INVOLVING TWO DIFFERENT PATIENTS. THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO REPORTS. REFER TO 9611594-2019-00188 FOR THE FIRST REPORT. IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NASOGASTRIC (NG) TUBE THAT HAD BEEN PLACED INTO A PATIENT HAD "FELL INTO THREE PIECES." NO PATIENT INJURY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BUT NOT YET RECEIVED.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 9170057 ↗MalfunctionOct 8, 2019Break; Break
AVANOS MEDICAL INC. RECEIVED A SINGLE REPORT THAT REFERENCED TWO DIFFERENT INCIDENCES, WHICH WERE ASSOCIATED WITH SEPARATE UNITS, INVOLVING TWO DIFFERENT PATIENTS. THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO REPORTS. REFER TO 9611594-2019-00189 FOR THE SECOND REPORT. IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NASOGASTRIC (NG) TUBE THAT HAD BEEN PLACED INTO A PATIENT HAD "FELL INTO THREE PIECES." NO PATIENT INJURY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED BUT NOT YET RECEIVED.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 9170054 ↗MalfunctionSep 16, 2019Material Puncture/Hole; Material Split, Cut or Torn; Material Puncture/Hole; Material Split, Cut or Torn
PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE TEARS IN THE TUBE WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PATIENT. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO RISK OF ASPIRATION TO THE PATIENT. THIS COMPLAINT IS NO LONGER A REPORTABLE EVENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 9071357 ↗MalfunctionAug 14, 2019Break; Obstruction of Flow; Break; Obstruction of Flow
IT WAS REPORTED THAT "THE TUBE WAS PLACED IN A PEDIATRIC PATIENT ON (B)(6) [2019]. ON (B)(6)[2019], THE TUBE WAS REMOVED AND THE DOCTOR REALIZED THAT ONLY A PART OF THE TUBE WAS REMOVED. AFTER CHECK IT BY RX [RADIOGRAPHY] THEY SAW THAT A PART OF THE TUBE WAS STILL ON JEJUNUM (13 CM APPROX.). A SURGICAL INTERVENTION WAS NEEDED TO REMOVE THE BROKEN PART. BETWEEN (B)(6) [2019] AND (B)(6) [2019], THE TUBE WAS OBTURED [OBSTRUCTED] AND THEY IRRIGATED THE TUBE WITH 5CC OF WATER, BUT THEY DID NOT PERCEIVE THE BROKEN.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8895672 ↗MalfunctionMar 12, 2019Material Fragmentation; Material Fragmentation
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NASOGASTRIC (NG) TUBE BURST DURING USE. THE FIRST HALF OF THE TUBE WAS RETRIEVED EASILY BUT THE SECOND HALF REQUIRED FORCEPS TO REMOVE. PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 21 FEB 2019, THE TUBE PIECE WAS REMOVED BY AN ANESTHETIST USING FORCEPS WITHOUT THE AID OF AN ENDOSCOPE. THE TUBE HAD BEEN IN PLACE AROUND THREE MONTHS. THERE WAS A HISTORY OF THE TUBE CLOGGING PREVIOUSLY. THE PATIENT WAS AN OUTPATIENT AT THE WARD AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. NO FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient
MAUDE report 8415146 ↗MalfunctionFeb 12, 2019Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT WHEN THE TUBE WAS REMOVED ONLY THE TOP HALF CAME OUT AS THE TUBE HAD BROKEN IN TWO. THE BOTTOM PART REMAINED IN THE PATIENT. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient
MAUDE report 8332221 ↗MalfunctionJan 10, 2019Break; Break
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 11-JAN-2019 STATED THE DEVICE STOCK CODE WAS UPDATED FROM 40-8633 TO 40-9633.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 8238244 ↗InjuryDec 5, 2018Malposition of Device; Malposition of Device
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT SUSTAINED A RIGHT SIDED PNEUMOTHORAX FOLLOWING TUBE INSERTION, DETECTED ON CHEST X-RAY THAT WAS PERFORMED WHEN NO CHEST ASPIRATE COULD BE OBTAINED. PATIENT WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE A CHEST DRAIN INSERTED AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE HIGH DEPENDENCY UNIT. REVIEWED BY CARDIO-THORACIC TEAM FOLLOWING X-RAY RESULT AND HAD RIGHT SIDED INTERCOSTAL CHEST DRAIN INSERTED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 19-NOV-2018 STATED THE PATIENT CONTINUES TO HAVE A REDUCED LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND IS FULLY DEPENDENT ON NURSING STAFF WITH ALL HIS CARE NEEDS. THE PATIENT WAS REVIEWED AND ASSESSED BY THE CARDIO-THORACIC TEAM FOLLOWING X-RAY RESULT AND A RIGHT SIDED INTERCOSTAL CHEST DRAIN WAS INSERTED.
Patient problems: Pneumothorax
MAUDE report 8134578 ↗MalfunctionOct 1, 2018Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT UPON REMOVAL OF THE NASO-JEJUNAL (NJ) TUBE FROM A PATIENT IN PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE TUBE HAD BROKEN, AND PART OF THE TUBE REMAINED INSIDE THE PATIENT. A PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO REMOVE THE BROKEN PIECE OF TUBE, AND TO RE-PASS A NEW NJ TUBE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient
MAUDE report 7923858 ↗
Sources and updates
- Models: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026. Models are grouped by the brand name the manufacturer registered.
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026
- 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