|
As reported, during an unspecified procedure, a flexor ansel guiding sheath was found damaged in the package.The three way stopcock was fractured and sheath tip was smashed within the package.The procedure was completed with a new product.No section of the device remained inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, during an unspecified procedure, a flexor ansel guiding sheath was found damaged in the package.The three way stopcock was fractured and sheath tip was smashed within the package.The procedure was completed with a new product.Investigation ¿ evaluation: a visual inspection of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.The customer returned one prior to use kcfw-7.0-18/38-45-rb-anl1-hc in a damaged condition to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: the stopcock was fractured (a piece was broken off, looks like a cap).The distal tip was smashed.Measuring from the proximal hub at 9cm damage was noted and measured approximately 2cm in length.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.Because there are 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 field.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: ¿how supplied¿ ¿upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ a review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.Cook has concluded that most likely shipping/handling contributed to this failure mode.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database 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.
|