|
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 in the left hypogastric artery using pod coils, ruby coils, and a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).During the procedure, a pod coil was advanced to the target vessel; however, the pod coil was determined to be too small.Therefore, the pod coil was removed intact.Then, the physician advanced a ruby coil to the target vessel; however, the ruby coil was also determined to be too small.Therefore, the ruby coil was removed and saved for later use.The physician then successfully implanted another pod coil in the target vessel.Next, the physician re-advanced the previously removed ruby coil to the target vessel; however, the ruby coil was determined to be too small again.Therefore, the ruby coil was re-sheathed.The physician then successfully implanted another ruby coil in the targe vessel.While attempting to re-advance the previously removed ruby coil through the lantern a third time, the ruby coil unintentionally detached in the lantern.Therefore, the lantern containing the detached ruby coil was removed from the patient.The procedure was completed using another ruby coil and the same lantern.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|