| Model Number |
CTF01 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/20/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The event device is anticipated to be returned to applied medical for evaluation.A follow-up report will be provided upon completion of the investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Procedure performed: laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy.Event description: rep was not present in the case.Per the surgical services lead a trocar broke in a patient.Per the staff in the case, it is believed to be the surgeon's technique and the "insertion of the scope through the trocar was not gentle as it should have been." the trocar had been placed in the abdomen.Camera was being introduced into the trocar.Per the tech: dr was not as gentle as she had noted from other surgeons as he introduced camera down trocar.The trocar hinged on one side, still connected on one side.During manipulation of the trocar ¿ the entire piece separated.Per surgeons op note: i attempted to visualize the hepatic contour, but the plastic sleeve broke, in the mid location of the sleeve.The distal end was easily visualized, but i was not able to grasp it with the instruments, in order to remove it.The skin side was removed and the umbilical incision was extended and the tissue was cut until at the level of the break.The sleeve was grasped with the kelly clamp and it was gently pulled and removed.The two pieces seemed to form the previously intact sleeve.Larger trocar was a ctf33 according to the charges for the case.The ctf33 was also being used in the procedure, it is not the complaint device.Delay: maybe 5 minutes as the surgeons tried to discuss how to retrieve.Product available for return.Additional information was received via email and telephone on 02nov2021 from applied medical representative: confirmed that there was no patient injury.It is unknown how the trocar was inserted or if there was any difficulty during insertion.The break was jagged but did not cause particulation.Additional information was received via email on 04nov2021 from applied medical representative: a [ ] laparoscope was inserted in the trocar at the time of the event.Additional information was received via email on 12nov2021 from applied medical representative: there was no patient injury or illness associated with the complaint event.Type of intervention: the piece of trocar was removed from the patient.Patient status: there was no patient injury or illness associated with the complaint event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Procedure performed: laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy event description: rep was not present in the case.Per the surgical services lead a trocar broke in a patient.Per the staff in the case, it is believed to be the surgeon's technique and the "insertion of the scope through the trocar was not gentle as it should have been." the trocar had been placed in the abdomen.Camera was being introduced into the trocar.Per the tech: dr was not as gentle as she had noted from other surgeons as he introduced camera down trocar.The trocar hinged on one side, still connected on one side.During manipulation of the trocar ¿ the entire piece separated.Per surgeons op note: i attempted to visualize the hepatic contour, but the plastic sleeve broke, in the mid location of the sleeve.The distal end was easily visualized, but i was not able to grasp it with the instruments, in order to remove it.The skin side was removed and the umbilical incision was extended and the tissue was cut until at the level of the break.The sleeve was grasped with the kelly clamp and it was gently pulled and removed.The two pieces seemed to form the previously intact sleeve.Larger trocar was a ctf33 according to the charges for the case.The ctf33 was also being used in the procedure, it is not the complaint device.Delay: maybe 5 minutes as the surgeons tried to discuss how to retrieve.Product available for return.Additional information was received via email and telephone on (b)(6) 2021 from applied medical representative: confirmed that there was no patient injury.It is unknown how the trocar was inserted or if there was any difficulty during insertion.The break was jagged but did not cause particulation.Additional information was received via email on (b)(6) 2021 from applied medical representative: a laparoscope was inserted in the trocar at the time of the event.Additional information was received via email on 12nov2021 from applied medical representative: there was no patient injury or illness associated with the complaint event.Type of intervention: the piece of trocar was removed from the patient.Patient status: there was no patient injury or illness associated with the complaint event.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The event unit was returned to applied medical for evaluation.Visual inspection confirmed the complainant¿s experience of a fractured cannula.The wall thickness of the cannula was measured and found to be within specifications.Based on the condition of the returned unit and the description of the event, it is likely that the cannula fractured due to a large force exerted on the unit during use.The probability and criticality of harm resulting from this failure have been evaluated and were found to be at an acceptable level.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|