It was reported, a urologist was inserting a suprapubic malecot (percutaneously) in an older teenage male patient (age unknown).An ¿angiocath¿ (needle) was used to insert a standard fixed core wire guide.The malecot catheter was placed over the wire and when they went to pull the wire, it seemed stuck.A small incision was made to get the wire out.The wire came out in multiple pieces.A cystoscopy was performed and the surgeon confirmed all the pieces were retrieved and the patient is fine.No additional patient consequences were reported.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Additional information: section c.Investigation ¿ evaluation.It was reported, a urologist was inserting a universa malecot suprapubic percutaneous drainage catheter into the patient.An ¿angiocath¿ (15g locking needle from the universa malecot suprapubic percutaneous drainage catheter kit) was used to insert a standard fixed core wire guide.The malecot catheter was placed over the wire and when they went to pull the wire, it seemed stuck.A small incision was made to get the wire out (the suprapubic insertion site was enlarged).The wire came out in multiple pieces.A cystoscopy was performed, and the surgeon confirmed all the pieces were retrieved and ultimately the clinical outcome from the surgery was good.There were no additional consequences to the patient as a result of this occurrence.A visual inspection of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, the instructions for use, and quality control data.One ptfe wire guide was returned for investigation.The physical/visual examination of the returned device showed: the wire guide was returned in four (4) separate pieces/sections.Both of the ball welds were present.As a result of the wire guide separation, the mandril and safety wire were both exposed throughout each section and each section had elongation.The wire guide outside diameter (od) measured 0.035¿ which is within device specification.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.Because there were no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.The wire guide is not supplied with an instructions for use (ifu).Cook has concluded that the main cause of the failure is due to component failure unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed, and it was determined that no further action is required.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|