As reported, when advancing a universa soft ureteral stent over the pusher, the stent separated.The device did not make patient contact.A photo of the device shows the separation occurred at the proximal pigtail at the non-tether end.A new stent set 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 intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
Event summary: as reported, when advancing a universa soft ureteral stent over the pusher, the stent separated.The device did not make patient contact.A photo of the device shows the separation occurred at the proximal pigtail at the non-tether end.A new stent set 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 intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.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 (dhr), personnel interviews, the instructions for use, and quality control data.A device failure analysis was able to be conducted on the returned device.The device was returned in opened original packaging without the tether.In contrast to the customer supplied additional information, the coil on the stent¿s tethered end was observed to be separated.The length of the separated segment was measured to be 4.5cm.In addition, the separated end had a tear spanning between the first sideport from the end to the end.This tear in the separated coil was thought to likely be caused by the act of removing the tether.The wire guide was returned and inspected.No defects were found.The cause of the coil separation was unable to be determined with the available information.A review of the device history record (dhr) 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 related complaints from the lot 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.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: how supplied: upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ the cause of the coil separation was unable to be determined with the available information.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook medical 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.
|