|
|
| Model Number |
RBYPCLP15 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Failure to Advance (2524)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/04/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Evaluation of the returned packing coil lp revealed that the pusher assembly mid-joint was retracted proximal to the introducer sheath friction lock.If this occurs, resistance will likely be experienced while advancing the device and the device may not be advanced out of the introducer sheath.During functional testing, the pusher assembly mid-joint was advanced through the introducer sheath friction lock with resistance.Then the packing coil lp was able to be advanced out of its introducer sheath without an issue.Evaluation of the returned ruby coil lp revealed that the pusher assembly mid-joint was retracted proximal to the introducer sheath friction lock.If this occurs, resistance will likely be experienced while advancing the device and the device may not be advanced through its introducer sheath.Forceful advancement against this resistance may contribute to the pusher assembly kink and subsequent fracture near the pusher assembly mid-joint.Further evaluation of the device revealed a detached embolization coil.This damage was likely resulted from the pusher assembly fracture.Penumbra coils are visually 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 number: 3005168196-2021-00661.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure to treat a gastrointestinal bleed (gi bleed) in the gastroduodenal artery (gda) using a packing coil lp, a ruby coil lp, and a non-penumbra microcatheter.During the procedure, a packing coil lp would not advance from the starting position within its introducer sheath.Therefore, it was removed.The physician then attempted to advance a ruby coil lp; however, the same issue occurred.Therefore, the ruby coil lp was removed.The procedure was completed using new coils and the same microcatheter.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|