|
The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the splenic artery using ruby coils and a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).During the procedure, the physician placed three ruby coils into the target vessel using the lantern.Then, the physician advanced the next ruby coil into the target vessel, it was reported that the ruby coil was too long; therefore, the physician re-sheathed the ruby coil and saved it for later use.The physician then placed another coil into the target vessel using the lantern.The physician then attempted to re-use the ruby coil that had been re-sheathed; however, the ruby coil would not advance out of its introducer sheath.Therefore, the ruby coil was not used for the remainder of the procedure.The procedure was completed using additional ruby coils and the same lantern.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|