|
As reported, prior to use, as the doctor was attempting to shape the device, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath stretched and "ripped" at the shaft, exposing the coils of the device.The dilator was in place at the time of the event.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure, an angio of the right leg, successfully.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.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, prior to use, as the doctor was attempting to shape the device, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath stretched and "ripped" at the shaft, exposing the coils of the device.The dilator was in place at the time of the event.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure, an angio of the right leg, successfully.Investigation ¿ evaluation.An interview of personnel, visual inspection and dimensional verification of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, drawings, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, quality control data, and specifications.The complainant returned one device prior to use to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: the sheath material was separated 15.5cm from the distal end with coil exposure.The material was tested for delamination and embrittlement by bending the shaft and looking for failures.None were found.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: how supplied "upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." a capa was initiated due to an increase in the number of complaints for bond separation of flexor sheaths.The scope of the capa was expanded to include material separation that occurs anywhere along the shaft of the sheath.The capa team did not arrive at a definitive root cause.Based on the provided evidence and the completed investigation, cook has concluded device failure due to unintended user error contributed to this incident.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database for similar complaints.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.
|