The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the splenic artery using a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern), ruby coils, non-penumbra coils, and a non-penumbra catheter.It should be noted that the patient¿s anatomy was mildly tortuous, narrowed and moderately calcified.During the procedure, while advancing a ruby coil as the first coil in the mid-shaft of the lantern, the physician experienced resistance.Subsequently, the physician retracted and removed the ruby coil and flushed the lantern.While re-advancing the ruby coil through the same lantern, the physician experienced resistance again.Therefore, the lantern was removed.The physician then successfully implanted the ruby coil in the target vessel using another lantern.The procedure was completed using two non-penumbra coils and the second lantern.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
Evaluation of the returned lantern revealed an undamaged, functional device.During testing, a demonstration ruby coil was advanced through the lantern without an issue.The root cause of resistance during the procedure could not be determined.Penumbra catheters are inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.H3 other text: placeholder.
|