|
As reported, during an unknown procedure, the valve of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath separated from the sheath.The procedure was completed with another device.The dilator was not in place at the time of the event.Details regarding the anatomy are unknown.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Initial report: as reported, during an unknown procedure, the valve of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath separated from the sheath.The procedure was completed with another device.The dilator was not in place at the time of the event.Details regarding the anatomy are unknown.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation ¿ evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control procedures, specifications, and a visual inspection as well as dimensional verification of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.Two devices were returned to cook for investigation.Both had biomatter present on the device and the check flo values were separated from the sheath material.Additionally, both flares were out of round.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.The evidence indicates the product was made to specifications.A review of the device history record showed no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.As there are adequate inspection activities established, and objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.No gaps were discovered in the manufacturing instructions, specifications, drawing, specifications, or quality control procedures for this device.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.An ifu is provided with this device, which states ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿ the ifu goes on to provide specific instructions on proper sheath removal, including dilator reinsertion.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that this failure can be traced to the user not reinserting the dilator prior to the removal attempt per the ifu recommendation.We will continue our monitoring of similar complaints and have notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.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.
|