This device (lacrifast), the lacrimal duct tube, was employed to treat epiphora due to obstructions in the lacrimal duct of the patient.We got the info about this event when we interviewed with the doctor, and the actual device involved in the event was disposed of in the clinic.According to the doctor, she tried to insert and place this device into the patient's lacrimal duct.Since the doctor felt a stronger resistance than usual during the insertion of this device, she pulled it out of the patient's lacrimal duct and found that a stainless steel ring mounted in the distal tip of this device was missing.A new lacrimal duct tube from a different mfr was placed in the lesion.
|
The concerned device "lacrifast" is not distributed in us under this device name, but is identical to the device "lacriflow lacrimal stent" distributed in us under 510 (k) # k120886.The concerned device involved in the reported event was disposed of in the clinic and was not available for our further investigation.The lot # of the device was unk.As a possible cause of dropping off the ring during use, we speculate as follows: when the doctor tried to insert and advance this device through the lacrimal passage of the patient, excessive mechanical force was loaded in the distal tip of the device where the ring was mounted and the ring was finally dismounted to drop off out of the device.Doctor's comment: when i tried to insert this device into the patient's lacrimal duct, i felt a heavy resistance due probably to heavily occluded lesion.No health harm or aftereffect of the event was seen on the patient.No worsening of the lacrimal duct obstruction, inflammation of the lacrimal duct, or worsening of the epiphora was seen in about 3 weeks after the event.
|