|
Model Number M00542251 |
Device Problems
Break (1069); Positioning Failure (1158); Failure to Fire (2610)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 04/01/2020 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Date of event was approximated to (b)(6) 2020 as the event date is unknown.The complainant was unable to report the lot number; therefore, the manufacture date and expiration date are unknown.Health professional was approximated to yes as the initial reporter's occupation is unknown, but the event was reported to have occurred at a health care facility.(b)(4).The device has not been received for analysis.Upon receipt and completion of the failure analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental mdr will be filed.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a speedband superview super 7 device was used in the esophagus during a banding of esophageal varices procedure performed on an unknown date.According to the complainant, during the procedure, the first band was successfully deployed around the varices; however, when the second band was tried to shoot, it would not deploy.Reportedly, the gastroscope together with the device were removed from the patient, and it was found that the elastic bands were entangled together with the suture.The procedure was completed with another speedband superview super 7 device.It was noted that there was no difficulty experienced upon setting up the device.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.The patient condition at the conclusion of the procedure was reported to be okay and stable.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a speedband superview super 7 device was used in the esophagus during a banding of esophageal varices procedure performed on an unknown date.According to the complainant, during the procedure, the first band was successfully deployed around the varices; however, when the second band was tried to shoot, it would not deploy.Reportedly, the gastroscope together with the device were removed from the patient, and it was found that the elastic bands were entangled together with the suture.The procedure was completed with another speedband superview super 7 device.It was noted that there was no difficulty experienced upon setting up the device.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.The patient condition at the conclusion of the procedure was reported to be okay and stable.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Block b3: date of event was approximated to (b)(6) 2020 as the event date is unknown.Block e2: health professional was approximated to yes as the initial reporter's occupation is unknown, but the event was reported to have occurred at a health care facility.Block h6: device code 2610 captures the reportable event of bands failed to deploy.Device code 1069 captures the reportable event of suture broken.Block h10: investigation results: the returned speedband superview super 7 device was analyzed, and a visual evaluation noted that the tripwire was partially rolled and there was evidence that it was secured in the handle assembly when received; however, it was kinked in several locations.Further analysis noted under high magnification that the evidence of tripwire cut by an unknown tool was likely to remove the device from the scope.This condition is not considered as an issue of the device.The suture was intact and it was attached to the trip wire loop.Additionally, the ligator head had six bands attached to it while some bands were moved out of their positions and some were caught under the other bands, confirming the reported deployment failure.It was also noticed that some ligator head teeth were damaged, indicating that the component was submitted to a tension.The suture hole was in good condition and no damages were observed.A functional evaluation was performed by rotating the handle knob 180 degrees, an audible click was heard and indents were felt.No other issues with the device were noted.The reported event was confirmed.This failure is likely due to factors or conditions related to procedure during the use of the device that could have affected its performance and its intended purpose.Therefore, the most probable root cause is adverse event related to procedure.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed and confirmed that this device met all material, assembly and performance specifications.A labeling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the directions for use (dfu)/product label.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|