|
|
| Catalog Number |
RBYPODJ60 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
08/24/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This device is available for return.A follow up mdr will be submitted upon completion of the device investigation.This report is associated with mfr report numbers: 3005168196-2020-01485, 3005168196-2020-01486, 3005168196-2020-01487.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure using ruby coils, pod packing coils (podjs), and a non-penumbra microcatheter.During the procedure, while advancing three ruby coils and a podj separately through the proximal end of the microcatheter, the physician experienced resistance, and the ruby coils and podj became stuck.Therefore, the ruby coils and podj were removed.The procedure was completed using other ruby coils.It is unknown if the same microcatheter was used to complete the procedure.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Results: the pet lock was intact on the proximal end of the pusher assembly.The pusher assembly was kinked approximately 101.0 cm and 102.0 cm from its proximal end.The pusher assembly was fractured approximately 103.0 cm from the proximal end.The distal segment of the fractured pusher assembly was not returned for evaluation.The embolization coil was detached from the pusher assembly and not returned for evaluation.Conclusions: evaluation of the first ruby coil revealed offset coil winds on the embolization coil and kinks on the pusher assembly.If the device is forcefully advanced against resistance, damage such as this may occur.The ruby coil was returned with its embolization coil was partially advanced distal to the introducer sheath.This indicated that the resistance was encountered inside the non-penumbra microcatheter.The non-penumbra microcatheter used in the complaint was not returned for evaluation; therefore, the root cause of the resistance was unable to be determined.During functional testing, the embolization coil was retracted back into the introducer sheath; subsequently, the ruby coil was unable to advance out of its introducer sheath due to the offset coil winds on the embolization coil.Evaluation of the second ruby coil pusher assembly revealed a kink and a fracture near the kink.If the device is forcefully advanced against resistance, damage such as this may occur.The non-penumbra microcatheter used in the procedure was not returned for evaluation; therefore, the root cause of the resistance experienced during the procedure could not be determined.Further evaluation of the device revealed that the pull wire was retracted from the pusher assembly ddt and the embolization coil was detached from the pusher assembly.This damage likely occurred due to the pusher assembly fracture.The detached embolization coil was not returned for evaluation.Evaluation of the third ruby coil pusher assembly revealed a fracture and a kink near the fracture.If the device is forcefully advanced against resistance, damage such as this may occur.If the pusher assembly is fractured and the pull wire is retracted from the ddt, the embolization coil will detach from the pusher assembly.The proximal segment of the fractured pusher assembly, the pull wire and the detached embolization coil were not returned for evaluation.The non-penumbra microcatheter used in the procedure was also not returned for evaluation; therefore, the root cause of the resistance experienced during the procedure could not be determined.Evaluation of the returned pod pc pusher assembly revealed kinks and a fracture near the kinks.If the device is forcefully advanced against resistance, damage such as this may occur.If the pusher assembly is fractured and the pull wire is retracted from the ddt, the embolization coil will detach from the pusher assembly.The distal segment of the fractured pusher assembly and the detached embolization coil were not returned for evaluation.The non-penumbra microcatheter used in the procedure was also not returned for evaluation; therefore, the root cause of the resistance experienced during the procedure could not be determined.Penumbra coils are 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 numbers: 1.3005168196-2020-01485 2.3005168196-2020-01486 3.3005168196-2020-01487 h3 other text : placeholder.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|