|
As initially reported, during a procedure involving device closure of an atrial septal defect, a performer mullins guiding sheath became damaged upon introduction of the device into the patient over an unknown wire guide.The device was replaced.Upon return and initial inspection of the device, the tip of the sheath was found to be split.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.Additional information has been requested, but is unavailable at this time.
|
|
Description of event: as initially reported, during a procedure involving device closure of an atrial septal defect, a performer mullins guiding sheath became damaged upon introduction of the device into the patient over an unknown wire guide.The device was replaced.Upon return and initial inspection of the device, the tip of the sheath was found to be split.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A visual inspection 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, and quality control data.The complainant returned one rcfw-10.0-38-75-rb-mts device in used condition to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one used device received with no visible biological matter present.Inspection found a split in the sheath tip.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 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 did not establish a definitive cause for this event.However, the procedure is most likely a contributing factor 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.
|