It was reported that during a procedure to treat a lesion in the right popliteal to the distal superficial femoral artery with moderate calcification, pre-dilatation was performed with a 6x80 mm balloon catheter for 3 minutes.Reportedly, there was diffuse disease among the 80 mm segment of the lesion.Atherectomy was performed.The 5.5x80 mm supera self-expanding stent system (sess) was then advanced without resistance and deployment was initiated with the thumbslide; however, toward the end of deployment the proximal portion of the stent was not being pushed out of the outer sheath when the thumbslide was advanced distally and then proximally.Several attempts were made to advance the thumbslide distally and proximally; however, the ratchet was not deploying the stent.An attempt was made to re-flush the system in case there was any stickiness between the supera stent system and the surepath guide wire; however, the stent was still not able to be deployed.Reportedly, there were no issues noted with the surepath guide wire.An attempt was made to unlock the deployment lock to deploy the stent and the stent was still not able to be deployed.At this point, the stent was too far deployed to pull everything out of the patient anatomy, so the decision was made to deploy the stent with a pin and pull method.The 6f sheath was pushed in while the stent system was pulled out and the stent was able to be deployed; however, the proximal portion of the stent became elongated by 4 cm.The stent system was simply withdrawn from the patient anatomy without any issue.Post dilatation was performed using the 6.0x80 mm balloon catheter.There was no adverse patient effect and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.Evaluation summary: the device was returned and the reported deployment difficulty could not be confirmed as the stent had already been deployed.Based on visual analysis of the returned device, there is no indication of a product deficiency.A review of the lot history record revealed no non-conformances related to the reported event.A query of the electronic complaint handling database indicated there had been no similar incidents reported for this lot.Based on the reviewed information, no product deficiency was identified.
|