|
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 portal vein using ruby coils, a non-penumbra microcatheter, a non-penumbra catheter, and a 4.5f non-penumbra parent catheter.It should be noted that the patient's anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the physician encountered resistance while advancing a ruby coil over the rotating hemostasis valve (rhv) of the microcatheter.Therefore, the ruby coil and microcatheter were removed.The procedure was completed using five ruby coils, two pod packing coils (pod pcs), three other coils, the same rhv, another microcatheter, the same catheter, and the same parent catheter.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|