It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a cre pulmonary dilatation balloon was used in the left principal bronchus during a balloon dilatation procedure performed on (b)(6) 2023.Upon unpacking of the device, it was noticed that the balloon pressure label was missing.During the procedure, the balloon burst.The customer stated that no pieces of the balloon detached inside the patient.The procedure was completed with another cre pulmonary dilatation balloon.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.The patient's condition at the conclusion of the procedure was reported to be stable.
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a cre pulmonary dilatation balloon was used in the left principal bronchus during a balloon dilatation procedure performed on (b)(6) 2023.Upon unpacking of the device, it was noticed that the balloon pressure label was missing.During the procedure, the balloon burst.The customer stated that no pieces of the balloon detached inside the patient.The procedure was completed with another cre pulmonary dilatation balloon.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.The patient's condition at the conclusion of the procedure was reported to be stable.
|
Block e1: the initial reporter facility name is: block h6: imdrf device code a0402 captures the reportable event of a balloon burst.Block h10: investigation results: the returned cre pulmonary dilatation balloon was analyzed, and a visual examination found that the balloon and catheter of the device had no damages.The device was not returned with the pressure label.Functional analysis was performed, and the balloon was inflated without a problem, and it was able to hold the pressure.No other problems with the device were noted.With all the available information, boston scientific concludes the reported event of balloon burst was not confirmed.The results of the returned device analysis indicated that the balloon could be inflated and had no problem holding pressure.The balloon was returned in good condition, and there was no evidence of damage that could be associated with the reported event.Perhaps the technique used, or patient's anatomical conditions could have contributed to the customer interpreting the event as a balloon burst, however, there is not enough objective evidence to determine that it occurred due to a device problem.Therefore, the most probable root cause is no problem detected.
|