|
The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure pulmonary artery using ruby coils and lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).It was noted that the patient¿s anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the physician placed the lantern in the target location and advanced the ruby coil into the vessel for deployment.However, the physician was only able to advance half of the ruby coil out of the microcatheter and into the target vessel.It was also reported that due to tortuosity of the vessel, the physician was experiencing resistance advancing the rest of the coil out of the microcatheter.The physician applied more force to advance the ruby coil against resistance and, consequently, the ruby coil unintentionally detached.Therefore, a 60cc syringe was used to flush the rest of the ruby coil out of the lantern.It was also reported that the physician decided to remove and replace the lantern with a another microcatheter for additional support, there was no alleged malfunction and or deficiency against the lantern.The procedure was completed using additional ruby coils and a new non-penumbra microcatheter.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|