|
As reported, during a procedure involving the carotid artery via access in the superficial femoral artery, a flexor shuttle tibial guiding sheath separated at the hub upon removal of the device.The femoral access site was reportedly very fibrotic from a previous bypass procedure, as were the femoral and proximal right iliac arteries.Tension was reported upon removal of the sheath, which was inserted to 90 centimeters.The dilator was not in place upon removal of the sheath, which separated at the junction with the valve upon difficult removal from the patient.The device was completely removed from the patient.Heparin was given during the procedure; however, blood loss was not reported.The patient's current status was reported to be, "ok." 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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a procedure involving the carotid artery via access in the superficial femoral artery, a flexor shuttle tibial guiding sheath separated at the hub upon removal of the device.The femoral access site was reportedly very fibrotic from a previous bypass procedure, as were the femoral and proximal right iliac arteries.Tension was reported upon removal of the sheath, which was inserted to 90 centimeters.The dilator was not in place upon removal of the sheath, which separated at the junction with the valve upon difficult removal from the patient.The device was completely removed from the patient.Heparin was given during the procedure; however, blood loss was not reported.The patient's status was reported to be, "ok." 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.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.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.From the information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, dhf, and ifu, cook concluded that the device was manufactured to specification, and that there are no nonconforming devices in house or out in the field.The product ifu warns, "reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation." cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure without design or manufacturing deficiency contributed to the failure mode.The customer stated that the patient anatomy was fibrous, and that the dilator was not inserted when the separation occurred.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional 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.
|