|
As reported, during a thrombectomy of the femoral artery, a flexor raabe guiding sheath separated at the hub.The user reported resistance while changing the dilator, and the hub then separated from the sheath.Another device was used to complete the procedure.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.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, during a thrombectomy of the femoral artery, a flexor raabe guiding sheath separated at the hub.The user reported resistance while changing the dilator, and the hub then separated from the sheath.The dilator was partially inserted into the sheath when the hub separated.Another device was used to complete the procedure.Investigation ¿ evaluation: a 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, documentation, drawings, the instructions for use, interview of personnel, manufacturing instructions, quality control data, and specifications.The complainant returned one used kcfw sheath to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one used 8fr kcfw was received with dilator fully inserted.The check-flo was separated from the sheath material.No other damage was noted including the flare.The device passed the flare gauge test and the tapered connector cap id measured 0.151".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: warnings: 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.Reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.How supplied: upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." a capa was previously completed to address this failure mode for 4 to 8.0fr devices with prefixes kcfw, ksaw, and kcfn, and the capa included a root cause investigation.The capa team did not arrive at a definitive root cause.One primary contributing factor was identified: cook flexor devices are able to be advanced into restrictive anatomies, and the capa investigation showed clinical users may be using these devices to force through restrictive anatomy, causing separation upon removal.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.Based on the provided evidence and the completed investigation, cook has concluded component failure 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.
|