FDA Recalls IMRIS Operating Room Tables Over Rotation Hazard
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a recall of IMRIS ORT200 and ORT300 tables due to a risk of unintended rotation.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 6:17 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 6:17 p.m. ETFirst report
FDA Classifies Recall of IMRIS Operating Room Tables Over Rotation Hazard
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified as Class II a recall of IMRIS ORT200 and ORT300 operating room tables. The recall, initiated on August 6, 2026, covers 19 tables distributed worldwide, including the United States, Canada, China, Japan, and Sweden. The hazard is that unintended rotational movement during a procedure could injure a patient. No injuries appear in the public recall records.
The recall applies to tables with serial numbers listed in each record. The firm, IMRIS Imaging Inc, instructs users to test the table daily in all standard positions and inspect for anomalies, including the fit of covers, tabletops, headrest, pendant connection, and rotation. During use, staff are to verify that the table is locked by manually pushing it to confirm it does not rotate, and to contact IMRIS customer service immediately if the floor-latching mechanism is not functioning properly. The recall status is open.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 22:17current
First published.
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 22:23
First published.
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 22:20current
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.