|
As reported, during a procedure involving graft placement to treat an aneurysm in the abdominal aorta, via left femoral access, the tip of a flexor introducer sheath¿s dilator became damaged as the device was advanced into a ¿spiral part¿ of the tortuous left iliac artery.Per the reporter, the split tip appeared to be attached to the wire guide; however, as the wire was removed, a piece of the dilator separated and ¿fell down¿.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a procedure involving graft placement to treat an aneurysm in the abdominal aorta, via left femoral access, the tip of a flexor introducer sheath¿s dilator became damaged as the device was advanced into a ¿spiral part¿ of the tortuous left iliac artery.Per the reporter, the split tip appeared to be attached to the wire guide; however, as the wire was removed, a piece of the dilator separated and ¿fell down¿.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures was conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.One used kcfw-8.0-38-45-rb was returned to cook for investigation.The tip of the dilator was split.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The product ifu warns ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.¿ the information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and the investigation of return device suggests that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in-house or in the field.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that it is possible that the patient¿s anatomy contributed to this failure mode, as the anatomy was reportedly tortuous.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|