Covidien Recalls V-Loc 180 Suture Devices Over Sterile Barrier Defects; No Identifying Codes Provided

FDA classifies recall of 135,875 wound closure devices as Class II due to potential packaging tears that could lead to contamination; notice lacks identifying codes.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 25, 2026, 4:37 p.m. ET

On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted an enforcement report for a recall initiated by , of , Connecticut, involving its V-Loc 180 Absorbable Wound Closure Device. The recall, numbered , covers 135,875 devices distributed nationwide and in dozens of countries, including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. The FDA classified the action as , its middle category, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the chance of serious harm is remote. The agency stated that the product may contain a perforation or tear in the sterile barrier packaging, which could result in biocontamination of the sterile sutures, potentially leading to infection, loss of vision if used in ophthalmic procedures, or prolonged surgery. The recall is , and the FDA's enforcement report lists the recall as initiated on June 24, 2026. The V-Loc 180 is a sterile, single-use barbed surgical suture made from polyglyconate, used to hold tissue edges together without knots, according to product descriptions from medical supply sources. The FDA's database records no other enforcement action by . The recall notice does not provide identifying codes such as lot numbers or UPCs, so consumers and healthcare providers cannot determine from the notice alone whether a specific device is affected. The FDA advises checking with the manufacturer or distributor for further guidance.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 125 Aug 2026, 20:37current
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.