|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the splenic artery using a pod packing coil (pod pc), ruby coils, and lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).During the procedure, the physician advanced a pod10 outflow of the aneurysm; however, the coil was too large for the vessel.Therefore, the pod10 was removed and the physician successfully placed a pod8.Next, while advancing a pod pc through the lantern, the physician experienced resistance and, therefore, the pod pc was removed, and a new pod pc was placed in the vessel.Afterwards, the physician experienced resistance while advancing a ruby coil through the lantern; therefore, the physician re-sheathed the ruby coil and tried to advance the same ruby coil through the lantern; however, the same issue occurred.Therefore, the ruby coil was removed.It was reported that the lantern was flushed after each time a coil was delivered and there was no noticeable damage to the pusher assembly to the pod10, pod pc and, ruby coil were not kinked.The procedure was completed using additional pod coils, pod pcs, ruby coils and the same lantern.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
|
Results: the pet lock was intact on the proximal end of the pusher assembly.The pusher assembly was kinked approximately 9.0 cm from its proximal end.The embolization coil was detached from its pusher assembly inside its introducer sheath.The pull wire was in its initial position within the ddt alignment feature.Conclusions: evaluation of the returned pod pc revealed an undamaged, functional device.During the functional test, the pod pc was advanced through a demonstration lantern without an issue.The root cause of the reported complaint could not be determined.Evaluation of the returned ruby coil revealed a embolization coil was detached from its pusher assembly inside its introducer sheath.If the ruby coil is forcefully retracted against resistance, the pusher assembly may elongate beyond the length of the pull wire and allow the embolization coil to detach from its pusher assembly.The root cause of resistance could not be determined.Further evaluation of the returned ruby coil revealed a kink in the pusher assembly.This kink was likely incidental to the reported complaint.Penumbra coils are visually inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.This report is associated with mfr report number: 1.3005168196-2020-00901 h3 other text : placeholder.
|