A physician reported disengagement failure of a disposable perforator (id (b)(4)).The disengagement failure occurred during surgery and dural damage and minor brain contusion were observed.It occurred at making the first burr hole at the tent.Hemostasis and dura suturing were performed.The surgical time was extended for less than 30 minutes.The manufacturer of the drill used with the perforator was a mr8 (medtronic).According to reporter, it is unknown if the drill was electric or pneumatic, if the perforator clicked in place in the drill.It is also unknown if the recommended spring tests were performed between each burr hole.The patient is in the follow up.
|
The disposable perforator (id 261221) was returned for evaluation.Device history record (dhr) - here is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - visual inspection performed that revealed that the unit was lightly soiled and had a worn "eo" label.Functional spring test performed, unit passed the spring test and was determined to function as designed.Functional test performed, unit successfully drilled 5 holes and was found to function as intended.Conclusion, complaint could not be verified.Unit was found to meet all acceptance criteria.Therefore the complaint condition per the failure analyst could not be confirmed.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.Although the complaint was not confirmed, root cause was investigated and potential causes of failure include: user misuse.
|