FDA Reports Class II Recall of FORWARD Oral Airway Kits

An ongoing recall affects 509 medical airway kits distributed nationwide due to potential tip occlusion.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 4:57 a.m. ET

Developing · checked 8h ago

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 1:37 a.m. ET — checked 8h ago.

On August 12, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration published an enforcement report regarding an recall initiated on July 7, 2026, by . According to the FDA enforcement report, the recall covers of the FORWARD Oral Airway Kit (OPA Sizes 5, 6.5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12) under REF Number 1011-40002. The recall was issued because the The affected products contain two specific one-piece Guedel airway components: Size 00, ISO 5.0, blue (Product Code: 1100050) and Size 000, ISO 3.5, light green (Product Code: 1000035). The recall carries a classification and was distributed nationwide across the United States under recall number . The FDA defines as a category used where use of or exposure to a product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. According to registry records at the Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, a Guedel airway is a piece of clinical airway-management equipment placed into the mouth and over the tongue by a clinician, named after anaesthetist Arthur E. Guedel. These items are professional medical equipment supplied to healthcare providers and institutions rather than retail consumers. FDA enforcement records show no other recall actions listed for .

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 118 Aug 2026, 08:57current
First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.