|
As reported, prior to patient contact during a "tase" procedure, a hole or separation was noted between the performer introducer sheath and hub.As the user attempted to insert the dilator, it did not enter the lumen of the sheath, but rather came out between the hub and sheath material.The device did not make contact with the patient, and another device was used to successfully complete the procedure.There was no impact to the patient.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, prior to patient contact during a "tase" procedure, a hole or separation was noted between the performer introducer sheath and hub.As the user attempted to insert the dilator, it did not enter the lumen of the sheath, but rather came out between the hub and sheath material.The device did not make contact with the patient, and another device was used to successfully complete the procedure.There was no impact to the patient.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, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.The complainant returned (b)(4).Prior to use to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one prior to use sheath and dilator were returned.Dilator was partially inserted through sheath.Half of dilator exited the junction between connector cap and sheath.Proximal fitting was disassembled, and the flare was malformed with half of it missing.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 has concluded device 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.
|