• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: HALYARD - IRVINE ON-Q CATHETER; ELASTOMERIC PUMP

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

HALYARD - IRVINE ON-Q CATHETER; ELASTOMERIC PUMP Back to Search Results
Model Number ASKU
Device Problem Split (2537)
Patient Problem Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description
Procedure: asku.Cathplace: asku.An international distributor relayed a report received from a customer in the united kingdom regarding a catheter that "snapped off during attempted removal from the wound".The sample is available for return.Additional information was received on 05/22/2015.The incident occurred during catheter removal.Additional information was requested, however is not available at this time.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).Method: the device was received for analysis.A visual inspection was performed.The reporter was unable to provide a lot number; thus, the device history record (dhr) review cannot be conducted.Results: there are no testing results available as the investigation and evaluation are currently in progress.Conclusions: once the analysis and investigation are completed a follow-up report will be submitted.Information from this incident has been included in our product complaint and mdr trend reporting systems.Trend information is used to identify the need for additional investigations.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Methods: along with the previously reported method, microscopic inspection and catheter tensile strength testing were performed on the dual catheters.Results: silver-soaker catheter #1 was returned not fully intact, it was missing the black catheter tip.Evidence of stretching was observed throughout the infusion segment where the breakage occurred.The diameter of the breakage part was measured to be 0.021¿.The non-attenuated part was measured to be 0.043¿.The silver-soaker catheter was examined under a microscope and there were no signs of brittleness observed.Tensile strength testing was performed on silver-soaker catheter #1.The results for the catheter's mid-body segment was 10.75(lbf) and the results for the infusion segment was 9.22(lbf).The catheter met specifications during the tensile strength testing.Silver-soaker catheter #2 was returned fully intact.No damages were observed on the catheter.The catheter's diameter was measured to be 0.044".The silver-soaker catheter was examined under a microscope and there were no signs of brittleness observed.Tensile strength testing was performed on the silver-soaker catheter #2.The results for the catheter's mid-body segment was 9.36(lbf), and the infusion segment was 4.56(lbf).The catheter met specifications during tensile strength testing.The instructions for use (ifu) provides a warning, "placing the catheter such that obstruction will not occur and catheter removal will not be impeded.Prior to final suturing, make sure catheter moves freely to ensure it¿s not caught in sutures.Assure that catheter is not in a vein or artery." in addition, the ifu specifies, "caution if resistance is encountered or catheter stretches, stop.Continued pulling could break the catheter.¿ do not cut or forcefully remove catheter." conclusions: the investigation summary concluded that silver-soaker catheter #1 revealed that stretching was observed at the location of the breakage.The catheter (#1) was tested for tensile strength on both the infusion segment and mid-body segment and the catheter met specifications.Catheter #2 was examined, it was found to be fully intact with no damages observed on the catheter.The catheter (#2) was tested for tensile strength on both the infusion segment and mid-body segment and the catheter met specifications.Based on the evidence that was observed throughout the infusion segment on catheter #1 where the breakage occurred, it was determined that excessive force was used in an attempt to remove the catheter.In addition, it was reported that there was a possibility that the catheter may have been sutured in; this may have caused or contributed to the reported event.Based on this investigation, the complaint is confirmed that excessive force caused the catheter to break likely due to being sutured in place and not stopping when the catheter stretched.A technical bulletin "tips for preventing in-situ catheter breakage with the on-q* pain relief system" and an additional catheter ifu were sent to the customer.An historical review indicated that no other complaints were received that were associated with this lot number.Information from this incident has been included in our product complaint and mdr trend reporting systems.Trend information is used to identify the need for additional investigations.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
ON-Q CATHETER
Type of Device
ELASTOMERIC PUMP
Manufacturer (Section D)
HALYARD - IRVINE
43 discovery
suite 100
irvine CA 92618
Manufacturer (Section G)
AVENT S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
ave noruega edificio d-1b
fraccionamiento rubio
tijuana b.c.
Manufacturer Contact
maria wagner
43 discovery
suite 100
irvine, CA 92618
9499232324
MDR Report Key4835511
MDR Text Key5947060
Report Number2026095-2015-00165
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code MEB
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUK
PMA/PMN Number
PK063530
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Distributor,distributor,foreign
Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 05/18/2015
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model NumberASKU
Device Catalogue NumberASKU
Device Lot NumberASKU
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer06/01/2015
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 05/18/2015
Initial Date FDA Received06/10/2015
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Other;
-
-