Catalog Number 261221 |
Device Problem
Activation, Positioning or Separation Problem (2906)
|
Patient Problem
Brain Injury (2219)
|
Event Date 04/13/2021 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
An investigation has been initiated based on the reported information.Upon completion of the investigation, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
|
Event Description
|
A physician reported that a codman disposable perforator failed to disengage during cranial surgery for a sta-mca bypass resulting in dura mater damage.Hemostasis was performed.Another product was used for the procedure.No surgical delay was observed.The patient has recovered.The manufacturer of the drill used with the perforator was unknown.It is reportedly unknown if the drill was electric or pneumatic, it is unknown if the perforator clicked into place in the drill, and it is unknown if the recommended spring tests were being performed between each burr hole.No further information was provided by hospital.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The perforator was not returned for evaluation (as per customer, product not available) therefore, an evaluation of the device could not be performed.Lot number information has been provided; therefore, manufacturing records were reviewed and found no anomalies.The cause(s) of the difficulty reported by the customer could not be determined.If additional relevant information becomes available in the future, this complaint will be reopened, and the respective evaluation performed.Trends will be monitored for this and similar issues.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.
|
|
Event Description
|
N/a.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Updated fields: d9, g3, g6, h2.H3, h6, h10.The perforator was returned for evaluation.Device history record (dhr) - there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.Unit was observed to be lightly soiled.No other anomalies noted.The "ifu" testing procedure was performed with no observed anomalies.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.The root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.Product was received for analysis and the investigation could not confirm the complaint.The risk remains acceptable per the risk analysis.
|
|
Event Description
|
N/a.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|