(b)(4).The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.The product lot number was not provided, therefore, the manufacturing records could not be reviewed.The hospital disposed of the device.
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the left subclavian artery using ruby coils.During the procedure, the physician placed another manufacturer's microcatheter at the ostium of the patient's left subclavian artery and then advanced a ruby coil through it.While the ruby coil was being deployed, it started to prolapse on itself.The physician then attempted to retract the ruby coil in order to re-position it; however, while retracting the coil, the physician experienced friction and subsequently, the coil unintentionally detached with over half of the coil remaining in the microcatheter.Therefore, the microcatheter containing the detached ruby coil was removed and the procedure was completed using additional ruby coils.It should be noted that the physician did not use a rotating hemostasis valve (rhv) and did not have continuous flush throughout the procedure.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|