As reported, after ureteroscopic lithotripsy, the user opened the package of an ngage nitinol stone extractor and discovered the basket would not open.The yellow support sheath was also noted to be separated from the handle.The issue was detected before patient contact.Another same device was used to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unchanged, unknown, or unavailable.Investigation ¿ evaluation as reported, after a ureteroscopic lithotripsy, the user opened the package of an ngage nitinol stone extractor and discovered the basket would not open.The yellow support sheath was also noted to be separated from the handle.The issue was detected before patient contact.Another same device was used to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures, as well as a visual inspection of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One device was retuned to cook for evaluation.The returned device had a basket that was closed and could not be opened due to sheath damage.The yellow support sheath was separated at the handle.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.In response to this incident, cook completed a review of the product device master record (dmr) and concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Cook also reviewed the dhr for the complaint lot which recorded no nonconformances.A database search revealed no other related complaints had been reported from the complaint device lot.The information provided upon review of complaint file, device history record, complaint history, and quality control documents did not provide evidence to support that the device was manufactured out of specification or to suggest items in the lot or similar devices in the field or in house were nonconforming.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The product ifu, t_shef_rev1 provides the following information: suggested handling instructions for extractors and forceps important: excessive force could damage device.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, the cause for the damage could not be established.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the risk assessment no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|