FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Medline Reports Eight Injuries Linked to Recalled Neonatal and Pediatric Intubation Kits

The FDA says the company has reported eight injuries related to the issue and no deaths, in a recall the agency has placed in its most serious category.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Jun 17, 2025, 12:00 a.m. ETWritten Aug 7, 2026, 8:26 p.m. ET

More on this incident

, has reported eight injuries related to a recall of its neonatal and pediatric convenience kits, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA states there have been no reports of death. The agency's notice says the kits, used for various medical procedures including intubation, contain recalled Smiths Medical ORAL/NASAL Endotracheal Tubes that may have a smaller diameter than expected, which may prevent the patient from receiving proper ventilation. The FDA lists the hazard as a . The FDA has classified the recall as . The recall was initiated on April 4, 2025. The agency instructs users to check inventory and stop use of the affected product, return the destruction form included with the recall letter listing the number of affected kits to be destroyed, and destroy all affected kits in inventory. Affected product codes listed by the FDA include ACC010371C 10193489268188, ACC010381A 10193489800944, ACC010381B 10193489457803, ACC010381C 10193489922127, ACC010395 10193489218152, ACC010397 10193489218169, ACC010541A 10195327036980, ACC010541B 10195327153649, ACC010541C 10198459155765 and DYNJAA252 10193489297980.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:32current

    First published.

  2. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:22current

    First published.

  3. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:26current

    First published.

  4. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:28current

    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.