As reported, in the process of conveying the optease retrievable 55 filter, the outer sheath was pierced, and the filter could not be pushed.There was no patient injury.A 5f cordis femoral artery sheath angiography and 6f sheath that comes with the product were used.The indication for filter insertion was deep vein thrombosis of lower extremities.The device was prepped per the instructions for use (ifu).There was no difficulty experienced in prepping the device.The device did not kink nor bend at any time.The other devices used with the product did not kink nor bend at any time.The product, or any of the other devices used with it, had not been resterilized.The insertion difficulty was not caused by a blockage of possibly injectable material.The procedure was completed by resetting the sheath and using a new filter.The product is expected to be returned for evaluation.
|
Complaint conclusion: as reported, in the process of conveying the optease retrievable 55 filter, the outer sheath was pierced, and the filter could not be pushed.There was no patient injury.A 5f cordis femoral artery sheath angiography and 6f sheath that comes with the product were used.The indication for filter insertion was deep vein thrombosis of lower extremities.The device was prepped per the instructions for use (ifu).There was no difficulty experienced in prepping the device.The device did not kink nor bend at any time.The other devices used with the product did not kink nor bend at any time.The product, or any of the other devices used with it, had not been resterilized.The insertion difficulty was not caused by a blockage of possibly injectable material.The procedure was completed by resetting the sheath and using a new filter.The device was returned for evaluation.A non-sterile optease retr filter 55 cannula sheath with a retrievable filter inside, were received for analysis in a plastic bag.Per visual analysis, the filter was returned with the filter barbs protruding through the cannula sheath.Also, kinks were observed in the cannula sheath body near the stuck filter.No other anomalies could be observed by the naked eye.Per functional analysis, an attempt to pass the filter through the csi cannula sheath was performed.Despite the kinks on the cannula sheath, a lab sample obturator was introduced into the cannula sheath up to the filter in order to push the filter.However, the filter could not be advanced forward due to the filter barb protruding the cannula sheath wall.Therefore, a lab sample obturator was introduced into the cannula sheath at the distal tip, and the filter was moved backward to liberate it from its stuck position, and then, pushed forth once again.This time, the filter was able to be pushed all the way through and out of the sheath.Besides the kinks in the cannula sheath and the filter barb perforating the sheath, no other anomalies found.Per microscopic analysis, the cannula sheath kinked, and perforated area was inspected under the vision system.Amplified images of the cannula sheath were taken for a better observation of the sheath perforated condition.The type of damage observed on the cannula is that of damages commonly caused during the interaction of the cannula material with a sharp object or mechanical damage.In this case, the barbs of the filter caused the perforated condition found on the cannula sheath.Additionally, the filter barbs were also inspected under the vision system and no anomalies were found.A product history review of lot 17988678 revealed no anomalies during the manufacturing and inspection processes that can be considered potentially related to the reported complaint.The reported ¿filter ¿ impeded - perforated sheath¿ was confirmed during analysis of the returned device.The exact cause of the reported event could not be conclusively determined, however review of the analysis and the available information suggests procedural and/or handling factors, such as operator technique leading to kinking of the sheath, that may have contributed to the reported event.The filter/ filter barbs were inspected under the vision system and no anomalies were found.According to the instructions for use (ifu) which is not intended as a mitigation of risk, ¿if strong resistance is met during any stage of the procedure, discontinue the procedure and determine the cause before proceeding.¿ neither the phr, product analysis, nor the information available suggests a design or manufacturing related cause for the reported event; therefore, no corrective/preventive action will be taken at this time.
|