|
As reported via mw5101086, a ureteral brush biopsy set separated inside another manufacturer's scope.The device was passed through the scope.When removed from the scope, it was noted that the brush was no longer attached to the device.A second brush was opened to complete the procedure.Intraoperative x-ray was used to verify that the brush did not remain in the patient.No adverse effect to the patient was reported as a result of this occurrence.Additional patient and event information have been requested.
|
|
Event description: as reported via mw5101086, a ureteral brush biopsy set separated inside another manufacturer's scope.The device was passed through the scope.When removed from the scope, it was noted that the brush was no longer attached to the device.A second brush was opened to complete the procedure.Intraoperative x-ray was used to verify that the brush did not remain in the patient.Attempts to acquire additional information from the user facility were executed, however no additional information was provided to cook in response to this incident.No adverse effect to the patient was reported as a result of this occurrence.Investigation ¿ evaluation: a document based investigation was performed including a review of complaint history, device history record (dhr), and quality control data.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed; however, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest this device was manufactured out of specification.No photos were provided.A search of our north american distribution center (nadc) database found all devices from the reported lot had been shipped.There was no similar product from the same lot available for investigation.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.Because there were 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 the field.The product specification for the device was reviewed and all devices are 100% pull tested to ensure the integrity of the bush assembly.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The complaint device was not returned and the customer did not respond to any requests for additional information related to the reported issue.The nature and cause of the reported issue could not be determined.The risk assessment for this failure mode was reviewed, and it was determined that no actions are required.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and we will continue to monitor 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.
|