A facility reported that the perforator failed to disengage during surgery on a(b)(6) male patient.The perforator was used in 4 places and disengagement occurred during the first and second burr hole placements.Dural damage and a minor brain contusion were observed.Hemostasis was performed.Patient factors such as bone condition and thickness, dural adhesions, etc.Could not be assumed, and it was used so that it was perpendicular to the bone as usual.No further information was provided by hospital.
|
Perforator was returned for evaluation: dhr: there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.The perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye: label was illegible, lightly soiled from surgery.No other anomalies were observed.Instructions for use testing was performed with no observed anomalies.Testing included: applying adequate pressure on the perforator point, ensuring engagement occurs as the hudson end is rotated.When engagement occurs, placing thumb pressure on the perforator point to ensure a smooth, positive spring action.Ensuring the hudson end rotates smoothly within the perforator body when the unit is in the disengaged position.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release.The unit was found to perform as intended and fulfilled the acceptance criteria.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit was found to work as intended, and met all acceptance criteria.The complaint could not be verified through failure analysis.
|