As reported, during an embolization procedure prior to a hepatectomy, two three-way plastic rotating adapter stopcocks leaked.The embolization procedure involved an unknown microcatheter and "histoacrylic och lipiodol".During preparation for the procedure, leakage was discovered as the complaint devices were flushed with glucose.During the same procedure, another three-way plastic rotating adapter stopcock from a different lot also leaked.That event will be reported under patient identifier 318655.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
Description of event: as reported, during an embolization procedure prior to a hepatectomy, two three-way plastic rotating adapter stopcocks leaked.The embolization procedure involved an unknown microcatheter and "histoacrylic och lipiodol".During preparation for the procedure, leakage was discovered as the complaint devices were flushed with glucose.During the same procedure, another three-way plastic rotating adapter stopcock from a different lot also leaked.That event will be reported under patient identifier 318655.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.Investigation ¿ evaluation: a visual inspection of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, documentation, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.Two stopcocks received used along with 13 sealed devices.Inspection found a crack in the stopcocks.The sealed devices were examined for cracks, 5 stopcocks were found to have cracks.No other issues were identified.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.There is no product labeling to be reviewed for this complaint.No instructions for use are included with the product packaging.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.Of the 13 sealed devices that were returned 5 were found to have cracks.The remaining 8 devices from the lot were undamaged.The review of the device history record showed evidence to support that the lot was manufactured to specification.With all this information in mind, it is most likely that the devices may have been damaged during either shipping or storage.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database for similar complaints.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|