During the procedure, while advancing an unspecified competitor¿s coil (tornado/cook, size unknown) in a transit 2 (601-251x/15819069) using an unspecified competitor¿s pusher (cook, brand name unknown), the physician experienced severe resistance around the middle section of the microcatheter and could not advance it any further.Then all the system including the transit 2, competitor¿s coil and pusher were safely removed as a unit from the patient.The procedure was continued using a new microcatheter (601-251x, lot unknown), same competitor¿s coil and pusher.Afterwards, the procedure was successfully completed without any further issues.There was no patient injury/complications reported.Prior to the complaint product, two competitor¿s coils (tornado/cook, size unknown) were successfully delivered and placed into the target lesion using the same microcatheter with no further issues.The complaint product was new and was stored per labeling instructions.The procedure was conducted in accordance with the ifu and the constant flush had been maintained at all times.Prior to use, no defect (kink, bends etc) was noted on the product by visual inspection.Also no damages were reported on the device after the event.It is unknown if the microcatheter was re-shaped or not.The complaint product is going to be returned for evaluation.No additional information is available.The procedure was coil embolisation for internal iliac artery prior to stent grafting.Characteristics of the vessel was mildly calcified and moderately tortuous.
|
The product was received for analysis, but it has not been completed.Additional information will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.Concomitant medical products: competitor¿s coil (tornado/cook, size unknown); competitor¿s pusher (cook, brand name unknown); new microcatheter (601-251x, lot unknown); two competitor¿s coils (tornado/cook, size unknown).
|