A physician reported the perforator failed to disengage during cranial surgery for an acute subdural hematoma removal resulting in dural damage and a brain contusion.The perforator failed to disengage while making the second burr hole at the tentorium.Hemostasis was performed and a dural suture was placed.The physician made 7 burr holes.The device was used and completed for the procedure.No surgical time delay was observed.The patient's condition has not recovered.The medtronic integrated power console was used with the perforator.It is unknown if the drill was electric or pneumatic, it is unknown if the perforator clicked into place in the drill, and it is unknown if the recommended spring tests were being performed between each burr hole.
|
Dhr: there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.The unit was soiled from surgery and had a worn label.No other anomalies were noted.Ifu testing was performed with no observed anomalies.Testing included: applying adequate pressure on the perforator point, ensuring engagement occurs as the hudson end is rotated.When engagement occurs, placing thumb pressure on the perforator point to ensure a smooth, positive spring action.Ensuring the hudson end rotates smoothly within the perforator body when the unit is in the disengaged position.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release.The unit was found to perform as intended and fulfilled the acceptance criteria.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit was found to work as intended, and met all acceptance criteria.The complaint could not be verified through failure analysis.The root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.Product was received for analysis and the investigation could not confirm the complaint.
|