|
As reported, during a procedure involving angioplasty of the posterior tibial artery, the wire included in a micropuncture transitionless pedal access set unraveled and separated in the patient upon removal of the device.The posterior tibial access site was reportedly normal.Resistance was encountered upon removal of the wire, at which point the wire unraveled and separated, leaving a fragment in the patient.The separated fragment was retrieved via a surgical incision.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.Per the user, the wire was not manipulated or removed through the entry needle.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Event summary: as reported, during a procedure involving angioplasty of the posterior tibial artery, the wire included in a micropuncture traditionless pedal access set unraveled and separated in the patient upon removal of the device.The posterior tibial access site was reportedly normal.Resistance was encountered upon removal of the wire, at which point the wire unraveled and separated, leaving a fragment in the patient.The separated fragment was retrieved via a surgical incision.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.Per the user, the wire was not manipulated or removed through the entry needle.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation / evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures of the device were conducted during the investigation.No device was returned for investigation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were recorded, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The device history record review provides objective evidence that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was functionally inspected by quality control and no notable gaps in production or processing controls were noted.There is no indication that a design or process related failure mode contributed to the reported event.Sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The device is provided with instructions for use which caution, ¿do not attempt to insert or withdraw the wire guide and/or introducer if resistance is felt.¿ based on the available information, cook has concluded that an unintended user error was the cause of this event.The device was reportedly withdrawn from the patient despite resistance, contrary to the precautions of the ifu.Cook will continue monitoring of similar complaints and has notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.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.
|