No hospital/medical records or medical images have been made available to the manufacturer.As the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
It was reported that after a successful stereotactic biopsy procedure the patient allegedly had pain, the probe was allegedly stuck within the breast and extra force was required to remove it from the patient.Reportedly, the user noticed the needle was bent upon removal from the patient.There was no reported impact or consequence to the patient.
|
Manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was conducted and there was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Visual/microscopic inspection: the aperture was 90% opened.The probe vacuum tubing was cut from the probe and not returned.No damage was identified to the rear housing.A marker applicator was returned inserted fully through the back of the probe.The grey port cap was not returned.The marker applicator was removed and one pad was seen undeployed within the applicator.The entire distal end of the probe aperture was noted to be severely twisted starting at the tip of the cutter.The aperture was examined under magnification and it was noted that the cutter had gouged into the side of the aperture; this indicated that the cutter was responsible for the twisted distal tip.The damage to the cutter was consistent with the damage to the cannula.No other anomalies were noted.The probe was examined via x-ray imaging prior to functional testing.The image shows both of the front stops to be intact on the front housing.Functional/performance evaluation: functional testing was not performed due to the poor sample condition.Medical records review: medical records were not provided; therefore, a review could not be performed.Image/photo review: two returned electronic photos were reviewed.Both photos show an out of focus view of the distal end of a probe.Both photos show the aperture to be open and bent.Based on the photo review, the investigation can be confirmed for the reported bent device.Conclusion: one probe was returned for evaluation.The investigation is confirmed for the reported bent needle, as the distal end of the cannula was found to be bent.However, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported removal difficulties, as the conditions of use could not be recreated, and because the device was not able to be tested due to the bend.The bend in the cannula was due to the cutter catching on the cannula and twisting the cannula as the cutter oscillated.However, it is unknown how the cutter caught on the cannula.It is unknown if the bent cannula contributed to the removal difficulties.The definitive root cause could not be determined based upon available information.Labeling review: the current instructions for use (ifu) provides general instructions for use of the device, as well as warnings, precautions, and potential complications associated with the device.(b)(4).The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|