|
Device Problems
Material Fragmentation (1261); Defective Device (2588)
|
Patient Problem
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
Event Date 10/12/2023 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that a bmc steerable sheath was selected for use during an ablation.During preparation, while the device was outside the patient, the hemostatic valve at the proximal end of the hub came off (in two pieces).The surgeon reattached it and the procedure was completed.No leak was observed.During the flushing, the tubing did not fell off, nor resistance was experienced.No patient complications were reported.The device is expected to be returned for analysis.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The device has been received for analysis.Upon completion of the failure analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that a bmc steerable sheath was selected for use during an ablation.During preparation, while the device was outside the patient, the hemostatic valve at the proximal end of the hub came off (in two pieces).The surgeon reattached it and the procedure was completed.No leak was observed.During the flushing, the tubing did not fell off, nor resistance was experienced.No patient complications were reported.The device is expected to be returned for analysis.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The fields f10 and h6 (device codes (1)) were updated.Also, the returned sureflex sheath was analyzed.This is supplemental mdr to report investigation results (mdr aware date 31jan2024.) analysis of the device found during pre-decontamination the loose cap and a kinked was near rotation hub (likely due to product-return packaging).During testing, it was determined that the end cap and sheath handle were inspected under the vhx and no significant damage was observed on the valve.The outer handle and end cap had a flush mechanical connection as per design requirements.The snap fit dimension was measured and compared to the nominal specification.Specifically, the groove on both sides of the end cap were measured and which are within the nominal range.On the glue residue testing, it was noted that there was insufficient glue residue on both the sheath handle as well as end cap.For comparison, a non-complaint sheath handle was taken apart and inspected for glue residue, and a significantly higher glue residue was found on both the sheath handle and end cap.Lastly, the tensile force required to unsnap the end cap from the sheath handle was tested, and it was noted that did not meet its intended specifications.The reported allegation was confirmed (testing showed the end cap did not meet its intended specifications.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|