|
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.This report is associated with mfr report numbers: 3005168196-2021-01446, 3005168196-2021-01448, and 3005168196-2021-01449.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the subclavian artery using ruby coils, lantern delivery microcatheters (lantern), a non-penumbra sheath, and a 4f glide catheter.During the procedure, the physician advanced two ruby coils into the target vessel using the lantern; however, both coils were determined to be oversized.Therefore, both ruby coils were removed.The physician then attempted to advance a new ruby coil through the lantern; however, the ruby coil would not advance.Upon further inspection, the physician noticed a kink towards the hub of the lantern.Therefore, the ruby coil was removed and saved for later use.The physician then removed the damaged lantern and inserted a new lantern into the patient.Afterwards, the physician implanted the previously removed ruby coil in the target vessel.While advancing a new ruby coil through the lantern, the physician experienced resistance but was able to implant the ruby coil in the target vessel.Subsequently, when the scrub technologist was retracting the lantern without a guidewire, both ruby coils were pulled back into the brachial artery.Therefore, the physician used a snare device to remove both ruby coils.The physician decided to end the procedure at this point and planned to bring the patient back in on a later date.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|