FDA closes recall of Medline surgical kits over potentially contaminated component
The agency considers the recall carried out; consumers are urged to check the listed lot numbers.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 8:11 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 8:11 p.m. ETFirst report
Medline recalls 94 surgical convenience kits over potentially contaminated component
Medline Industries, LP, of Northfield, Illinois, is recalling 94 surgical convenience kits because they contain a potentially contaminated component that was recalled by the manufacturer, according to an FDA enforcement report dated September 2, 2026. The recall, listed as number Z-3022-2026, is ongoing and was initiated on July 10, 2026.
The affected kits are labeled as MAJOR PROCEDURE (SKU CDS982040U), OPERATIVE LAP P&S SURGICAL (SKU DYNJ89608), and LAPAROSCOPY (SKUs DYNJ903479L and DYNJ903479M). The FDA lists specific lot numbers and UDI/DI codes for each kit. The kits were distributed nationwide in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The FDA classified the recall as Class II, its middle category, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the chance of serious harm is remote. The FDA's enforcement database records no other enforcement action by Medline Industries, LP.
A surgical convenience kit is a consolidated, single-use package of medical devices and supplies used in operating rooms to set up sterile fields and access disposable instruments, according to product descriptions from medical supply sources. The kits are sold directly to healthcare facilities.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 00:11current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 00:24current
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.