SkimmerRecalls & reported problems across all models
Medtronic Xomed, Inc. · 7 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
1 open recall names at least one Skimmer model. Check whether yours is affected in the recall details, and contact the manufacturer or your healthcare provider.
- Adverse event reports
- 10
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 0
- Recalls
- 1
We found 7 models of Skimmer by Medtronic Xomed, Inc. in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 10 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Oct 7, 2021 and Aug 25, 2025 — classified as 10 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (8 reports).
1 FDA recall record name at least one of these models by its device identifier, 1 still open.
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
Reports received per month, all models
Skimmer recalls
FDA recall records that name at least one of these models by its device identifier, newest first. Each recall usually covers specific models or lots, so check the details.
- Aug 31, 2021Open, Classified
There was an increase in complaints related to tip breaks and wobble/vibration.
Z-0156-2022 · Root cause: Process control · names 2 of these models · Recall details · FDA record ↗
Most reported Skimmer problems
Device problems
- Break8
- Use of Device Problem3
- Vibration2
- Material Separation1
Patient problems
- No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions10
Skimmer models
7 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- Skimmer® 1882979HREBUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT1 recall0 reports
- Skimmer® 1882924HREBUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT1 recall0 reports
- Skimmer 1882925HREBUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT5 reports
- Skimmer® 1882924HREBUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT2 reports
- Skimmer® 1883523BUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT1 report
- Skimmer® 1884023BUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT1 report
- Skimmer® 1882923BUR, EAR, NOSE AND THROAT1 report
Recent Skimmer adverse event reports
The 10 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
MalfunctionAug 25, 2025Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT BLADE WAS BROKEN . THERE IS NO PATIENT INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 22882049 ↗MalfunctionAug 21, 2025Break; Break
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING LARYNGEAL TUMOR REMOVAL SURGERY; THE BLADE DID NOT ROTATE EVEN AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS. IT WAS RESPONDED TO BY OPENING ANOTHER PRODUCT. THERE WAS NO PATIENT IMPACT IN THIS EVENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 22859333 ↗MalfunctionSep 2, 2024Break; Use of Device Problem; Break; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE THREE BLADES WERE DAMAGED AND NON-FUNCTIONAL. THERE WAS A 5-10 MINUTE DELAY AS MULTIPLE BLADE SWITCHES WERE REQUIRED. THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 20115958 ↗MalfunctionSep 2, 2024Break; Use of Device Problem; Break; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE THREE BLADES WERE DAMAGED AND NON-FUNCTIONAL. THERE WAS A 5-10 MINUTE DELAY AS MULTIPLE BLADE SWITCHES WERE REQUIRED. THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 20115944 ↗MalfunctionSep 2, 2024Break; Use of Device Problem; Break; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE THREE BLADES WERE DAMAGED AND NON-FUNCTIONAL. THERE WAS A 5-10 MINUTE DELAY AS MULTIPLE BLADE SWITCHES WERE REQUIRED. THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 20115937 ↗MalfunctionDec 21, 2023Vibration; Vibration
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING PAPILOMA REMOVAL PROCEDURE, THE BLADE HAD AN EXTRA VIBRATION. THE SURGEON THEN CHANGES TO 27.5CM BLADE AND CONTINUE TO COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE. THERE WAS A PROCEDURE EXTENSION OF 15 MINUTES AND NO PATIENT IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 18374858 ↗MalfunctionApr 17, 2023Vibration; Vibration
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING REMOVAL OF LARYNGEAL MASS PROCEDURE, HALF WAY THROUGH THE CASE, BLADE TIP STARTED WOBBLING WHEN POWER WAS ADMINISTERED. IT WAS FURTHER REPORTED HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL TRIED UNCLOGGING, RE SEATING, USING A DIFFERENT HAND PIECE. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH BACKUP PRODUCT. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT IMPACT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 16755829 ↗MalfunctionJul 24, 2022Break; Break
A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) REPORTED INTRA OP, THE DEVICE WAS BROKEN. THERE WAS NO PATIENT IMPACT. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH BACKUP PRODUCT(S). NO A PROCEDURE DELAY. NO INTERVENTION PERFORMED.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 15090578 ↗MalfunctionApr 11, 2022Break; Break
A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) REPORTED THAT THE INNER LUMEN OF THE BLADE BROKE. THE DEBRIDER STOPPED OSCILLATING SO THE STRAIGHT SHOT WAS REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT TO SEE IF THE BLADE NEEDED TO BE CLEANED. WHEN THEY TRIED TO REMOVE THE BLADE, THE SCRUB NOTICED THAT THE INNER LUMEN BLADE WAS SEPARATED FROM THE OUTER LUMEN. SHE TRIED TO FORCE IT BACK TOGETHER BY PUSHING ON IT. THEY DO NOT KNOW IF THE INNER BLADE BROKE WHILE IN USE OR AFTER IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT AND THEY WERE TRYING TO CLEAN IT. THE EVENT OCCURRED DURING A MICRO DIRECT LARYNGOSCOPY PROCEDURE WITH BIOPSY. THE PRODUCT HAD CONTACT WITH A PATIENT WITH (B)(6). THERE WAS NO PATIENT IMPACT. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 45 MINUTES IN THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. NO BROKEN PIECES OF THE REPORTED PRODUCT REMAINED INSIDE THE PATIENT'S BODY. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH BACKUP PRODUCTS. ON FOLLOW-UP, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THEY STOPPED DEBRIDING AS THE BLADE WAS NOT OPENING/CLOSING PROPERLY OR THE MOUTH OF THE BLADE WAS NOT IN CORRECT POSITION. STAFF TRIED TO UNCLOG THE BLADE BUT COULD NOT OPEN THE MOUTH OF THE BLADE, TRIED REMOVING THE BLADE WHILE THE SUCTION WAS STILL ATTACHED. REMOVED BLADE TO UNCLOG FROM BOTH ENDS OF BLADE. T
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 14078422 ↗MalfunctionOct 7, 2021Break; Material Separation; Break; Material Separation
ON FOLLOW UP, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE BLADES BROKE IN 2 PARTS. THE BLADES WERE USED IN THE SAME CASE. THERE WERE NO FRAGMENTS THAT CAME OFF OR GOT DETACHED FROM THE BROKEN DEVICE. THE BLADES BROKE IN THE MIDDLE PART WHILE TRYING TO REMOVE FROM THE HANDPIECE. THERE WERE NO FRAGMENTS THAT GOT IN CONTACT WITH THE PATIENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 12590955 ↗
Other Medtronic Xomed, Inc. products
All Medtronic Xomed, Inc. devices →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 16, 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