|
As reported, a patient underwent a percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the kidney where a perc ncircle nitinol tipless stone extractor was used.The user attempted to remove the "large" stone though the sheath and was met with resistance.The physician continued tugging on the extractor while another user held the sheath in place, but the perc ncircle tipless stone extractor broke.The large renal stone was then obtained by using reusable graspers and a 2.2 fr ncircle.The procedure was completed successfully.No section of the device remained in the patients body.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|
|
Event summary: as reported, a patient underwent a percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the kidney where a perc ncircle nitinol tipless stone extractor was used.The user attempted to remove the "large" stone though the sheath and was met with resistance.The physician continued tugging on the extractor while another user held the sheath in place, but the perc ncircle tipless stone extractor broke.The large renal stone was then obtained by using reusable graspers and a 2.2fr ncircle.The procedure was completed successfully.No section of the device remained in the patient¿s body.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Investigation - evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use, and quality control procedures and a visual inspection and functional test of the device were conducted during the investigation.One device was returned without packaging or lot information.The grasper wires were broken.The metal actuator was returned detached from the red handle.When the metal actuator slid back into place inside the red handle, the grasper was able to be actuated.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were recorded, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The device history record review provides objective evidence that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.No gaps in production or processing controls were noted.There is no indication that a design or process related failure mode contributed to the reported event.Reviews of production and quality documentation did not observe any specific issues with current manufacturing or quality controls that may have contributed to this incident.Sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The device is provided with instructions for use which states, ¿excessive force could damage device.¿ based on the available information, cook has concluded that it is likely the orientation of the stone during the first removal attempt made the cross-sectional area too large to be removed through the scope.Force applied to the device to remove the stone likely caused the basket wire to break.Cook will continue monitoring of similar complaints and has notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|