| Model Number |
181347CS-V |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/15/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformance associated with the reported part/ lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.If the device is received, an investigation will be performed and a supplemental report will be submitted.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as a potential complication associated with use of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during an embolization treatment of a basilar aneurysm, the second coil became stuck within the microcatheter.Upon withdraw the coil detached from the delivery pusher within the microcatheter.The coil and microcatheter were withdrawn together and the procedure was completed successfully.No patient harm or injury was reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: h10 (summary device evaluation).Summary of device evaluation: the reported complaint is confirmed.The investigation of the returned coil system found the implant separated from the pusher, stretched at proximal and stuck inside the returned microcatheter.The pusher was received with no signs of activation on the pusher's heater coil and the attachment monofilament profiles a stretched tail shape at the tip.The returned microcatheter was found damaged 1.5" from the distal end.This damage creates a decrease in inner diameter, which would cause increased resistance/friction during retraction.The investigation determined the separation of the implant is consistent with the implant becoming stuck and then experiencing retraction forces that exceeded the strength of the monofilament.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the damage, but the damage is consistent with the device experiencing forces over specification.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|