As reported, prior to use during an unknown procedure, the hub of a tuohy-borst large bore clear plastic sidearm adapter separated.The device was intended to be used with an unspecified scope; however, the valve separated "as soon as water" went through it.The device did not make patient contact.The reporter believes that the valve was not threaded.Three other devices of the same type also separated at the hub/valve, prior to use, during the same procedure.Those devices will be reported under patient identifier (b)(6).A fifth device of the same type was used to complete the procedure successfully.There has been no report of any adverse effect to the patient.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Description of event: as reported, prior to use during an unknown procedure, the hub of a tuohy-borst large bore clear plastic sidearm adapter separated.The device was intended to be used with an unspecified scope; however, the valve separated "as soon as water" went through it.The device did not make patient contact.The reporter believes that the valve was not threaded.Three other devices of the same type also separated at the hub/valve, prior to use, during the same procedure.Those devices will be reported under patient identifier (b)(6).A fifth device of the same type was used to complete the procedure successfully.Investigation ¿ evaluation 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, documentation, drawings, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, quality control data, and specifications.The complainant returned ptbyc-ra prior to use to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one device received with the luer separated.Table top test found the parts could be connected but then easily separated.No visible cracks or damage.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.Because there are 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.A review of complaint history records shows one other complaint associated with the complaint device lot.The other complaint device failed due to an unrelated cause.This device is not provided with an instruction for use (ifu).A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.Based on the provided evidence and the completed investigation, cook has concluded component failure contributed to this incident.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database 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.
|