|
As reported by the field, during a coil embolization, an orbit galaxy xtrasoftd coil (640cx0306, 30592329) detached outside of the patient¿s body during the period of exhaust.The physician switched to a new device to complete the surgery.There was no patient injury report.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Information regarding patient weight, height, medical history, race, and ethnicity was not reported.Procode: krd/hcg.(b)(6).The device is available to be returned for evaluation and testing.However, it has not been received to date as indicated as ¿other¿ in this section as the reason for non-evaluation.If the device returns, a device investigation will be performed.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Updated sections on this medwatch: b4, g3, g6, h2, h3 h6 and h10.A supplemental report will be submitted if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.Complaint conclusion: as reported by the field, during a coil embolization, an orbit galaxy xtrasoftd coil (640cx0306, 30592329) detached outside of the patient¿s body during the period of exhaust.The physician switched to a new device to complete the surgery.There was no patient injury report.No additional information is available.A non-sterile unit og cmplx xtrasoft coil 3x6 was received inside of a pouch.The device was visually inspected, and a kink in the hypotube was noticed at 48.5 cm from the proximal end.The device was inspected under a microscope, and it was found that the embolic coil was not returned with the device.No further test could be performed due the returned conditions of the device.A manufacturing record evaluation (mre) was performed, and no non-conformances related to the complaint were found during the review.The product was returned to cerenovus for evaluation.Visual inspection of the device noted a kink at the distal part of the hypotube.Microscopic inspection revealed that coil was not returned with the device for evaluation.Due this condition no further test could be performed.Procedural factors may contribute to the issue reported; however, this cannot conclusively determine.The customer complaint was confirmed, however, the exact time when this condition occurred cannot be conclusively determined based on the evidence available.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed, and no non-conformances related to the complaint were found during the review.It should be noted that product failure could be caused by multiple factors.The instructions for use do contain the following directions: if it is determined that the microcoil will not be detached, simply disconnect it from the connecting cable and remove it from the microcatheter as outlined in the following section.Premature detachment is a known potential procedural complication associated with the product.Assignment of root cause for the events remains speculative and inconclusive, based on the limited information provided and the evidence presented by the returned device; however, it is possible that clinical and procedural factors, including device manipulation and device interaction, may have contributed to the reported failures and damages on the returned system.As part of the cerenovus quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended to identify statistical signals for consideration of further correction action.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.
|