|
As reported, during an unknown procedure of the leg a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath separated at the hub.The user gained access in the right groin, which was noted to be heavily scarred, and felt resistance.As the sheath was being removed, the user again felt resistance, the sheath separated at the hub.No portion of the device was left inside the patient.This did not result in additional procedures or prolonged hospitalization.The patient did not experience any adverse effects.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during an unknown procedure of the leg a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath separated at the hub.The user gained access in the right groin, which was noted to be heavily scarred, and felt resistance.As the sheath was being removed, the user again felt resistance, the sheath separated at the hub.No portion of the device was left inside the patient.This did not result in additional procedures or prolonged hospitalization.The patient did not experience any adverse effects.Correction: the following information was available and inadvertently omitted from the initial mdr.The dilator was not reinserted prior to removal of the sheath.An unknown wire guide was in the lumen of the device at the time of separation.Blood loss was within normal limits, and no intervention was required for blood loss.Investigation evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, and a visual inspection of the complaint device was conducted during the investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed one check flo was received used with biological material present.No visible damage to side arm or check-flo.Sheath material was not returned.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.Evidence from the complaint file, device history record, complaint history, validations, manufacturing documents, and device failure analysis suggests that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.The product ifu instructs the user to reinsert the dilator prior to removal of the sheath, to evaluate the source of any resistance, and inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred upon removal from the package.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that patient anatomy and failure to reinsert the dilator prior to removing the sheath contributed to this event.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|