• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: COOK IRELAND LTD EVOLUTION® COLONIC CONTROLLED-RELEASE STENT - UNCOVERED; MQR STENT, COLONIC METALLIC EXPANDABLE

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

COOK IRELAND LTD EVOLUTION® COLONIC CONTROLLED-RELEASE STENT - UNCOVERED; MQR STENT, COLONIC METALLIC EXPANDABLE Back to Search Results
Model Number G48028
Device Problems Material Twisted/Bent (2981); Activation Failure (3270)
Patient Problem No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
Event Date 02/24/2023
Event Type  malfunction  
Manufacturer Narrative
Pma/510(k) # k163468.Investigation is still pending, a follow-up mdr report will be submitted to include the investigation conclusions.
 
Event Description
The prosthesis made a strange noise and it didn't release."as per cc form": when they started to release the stent, it made a strong noise and it didn't release.Patient outcome: a section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Another stent according to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Patient/event info - notes: at what stage of the procedure did the complaint occur? during stent placement.What endoscope type and channel size was used? olympus 3,7 channel.What was the position of the elevator? open.Details of the wire guide used (diameter, type, make)? visiglide guidewire.Was the zip port facing upwards and slightly curved when backloading the wire guide? n/a, yes, no.Did any part of the stent contact the patient¿s anatomy when the complaint occurred? yes.Please advise the anatomical location of the intended target site.Colon.How long was the stent in the patient by the time this complaint occurred? i don't know.For devices where the ifu states for longer term patency has not been established, was periodic evaluation completed? n/a, yes, no.If yes, how often was this completed? did the patient require any additional procedures as a result of this event? another stent.What intervention (if any) was required? another stent.Was the secondary intervention performed during the same procedure as the device failure or was it scheduled for another day? same procedure.Were any other defects (other than the complaint issue) observed on the device prior to return (e.G.Kink)? not.If yes, please specify what was observed and where on the device it was observed.Stricture information: what was the length and diameter of the stricture? where was the stricture located in the body? was there resistance felt passing wire guide through stricture? n/a, yes, no.Was there resistance felt passing the evolution through stricture? n/a, yes, no.Was the stricture dilated before stent placement? n/a yes, no.Questions related to during insertion into patient: was the product inspected for kinks or damage before use? no.Was resistance felt during insertion into patient? no.If yes, at what point? questions related to during stent placement: did the product fail during stent deployment or recapture? deployment.If other, please specify.Was the directional button pressed during use? n/a, yes, no.Yes, it was checked.Was any part of the stent observed in contact with the patient¿s anatomy at the time of failure? n/a, yes, no.Was the yellow marker kept in view during deployment? yes.Are images of the device or procedure available? not.Questions related to during introducer withdrawal: are images of the device or procedure available? n/a, yes, no.Was final stent placement confirmed using endoscopy / fluoroscopy? n/a, yes, no, if yes, what was used? did the stent open sufficiently to allow withdrawal of introducer safely? n/a, yes, no.Was the safety wire fully removed before removing the delivery system? n/a, yes, no.Did any part of the product snag/get caught with the stent when removing the delivery system? n/a, yes, no.Questions related to during stent repositioning/removal (for evo-fc & evo-pc devices): what instrument was used for stent repositioning / removal? forceps, snare, other, if other, please specify.Was resistance encountered during advancement and/or deployment? n/a, yes, no, if yes, please when this was felt? advancement or deployment.How did the physician deal with this resistance? was the lasso (suture) loop used during repositioning lab evaluation was completed on (b)(6) 2023.
 
Event Description
Supplemental report is being submitted due to the completion of the investigation on 30-jan-2024.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Pma/510(k) # k163468.Device evaluation: the 01x evo-25-30-8-c device of lot number c1968827 involved in this complaint was returned for evaluation, with its original opened packaging.With the information provided, a physical examination and document-based investigation was conducted.The following complaints were raised as a result of this complaint: ¿ (b)(4) - use error - device not inspected for damage before use the device related to this occurrence underwent a laboratory evaluation on the 08th mar 2023.On evaluation of the device, the following was observed: visual inspection: ¿ red safety tab in place, ¿ directional button in deploy position, ¿ red marker at 5th dimple, ¿ safety wire still in place, ¿ significant kink on flexor just beside handle.* functional inspection: ¿ handle actuating fine for deployment and recapture, ¿ stent deployed with no issue and intact, ¿ safety wire removed and stent released with no issues.Note 1: as per the additional questions asked, the customer confirmed that there were no other defects other than the complaint issue of deployment difficulty.¿14.Were any other defects (other than the complaint issue) observed on the device prior to return (e.G.Kink)? not¿.Therefore, the product likely sustained the kink noted in the lab evaluation during transport and/or storage back to cirl for evaluation.Manufacturing records review: prior to distribution all devices are subjected to a visual inspection and functional inspection to ensure device integrity.A review of the manufacturing records did not reveal any discrepancies that could have contributed to this complaint issue.Historical data review: the review of relevant manufacturing records confirms the failure mode has not previously occurred for this work order.Instructions for use and/label review: there is evidence to suggest that the customer did not follow the instructions for use.As per the instructions for use (ifu0052) notes section "if package is opened or damaged when received, do not use.Visually inspect with particular attention to kinks, bends and breaks.If an abnormality is detected that would prohibit proper working condition, do not use." as per customer/rep testimony from the additional information answers, the user did not inspect the device for kinks or damage before use.The use-error for not inspecting the device prior to use will be captured in complaint (b)(4).Image review: an image was not returned for evaluation.Root cause analysis: a definitive root cause could not be determined as the circumstances of use cannot be replicated in the laboratory.A possible root cause could be attributed to the torturous patient anatomy.It is possible that during deployment tortuous path may have caused a build-up of pressure resulting in the deployment difficulties described by the user.The noise that the user reported was likely generated due to excessive strain/pressure placed on the device during deployment through the torturous path.Confirmation of complaint: complaint is confirmed based on customer and/or rep testimony.Confirmed quantity of 01x used device.Summary of investigation: according to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.The device was replaced within the same procedure without a health consequence complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
EVOLUTION® COLONIC CONTROLLED-RELEASE STENT - UNCOVERED
Type of Device
MQR STENT, COLONIC METALLIC EXPANDABLE
Manufacturer (Section D)
COOK IRELAND LTD
o halloran road
limerick
Manufacturer (Section G)
COOK IRELAND LTD
o halloran road
national technology park
limerick
Manufacturer Contact
sinead o'leary
o halloran road
national technology park
limerick 
MDR Report Key16663049
MDR Text Key312978808
Report Number3001845648-2023-00211
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code MQR
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeSP
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 01/30/2024
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model NumberG48028
Device Catalogue NumberEVO-25-30-8-C
Device Lot NumberC1968827
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer03/01/2023
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA? No
Distributor Facility Aware Date02/24/2023
Event Location Hospital
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 03/08/2023
Initial Date FDA Received04/03/2023
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received02/24/2023
Supplement Dates FDA Received02/15/2024
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured08/12/2022
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
-
-