| Model Number |
100515HCSR-R-V-A1 |
| 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 |
12/29/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during aneurysm embolization procedure, when the coil was deployed in the aneurysm resistance encountered and only half the coil deployed.The coil unintentionally detached in the microcatheter when it was being removed from the patient.The coil along with the microcatheter were successfully removed and procedure completed successfully.There was no report of harm or injury to the patient.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device was returned to the manufacturer for analysis.The investigation is currently underway.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as a potential complication associated with use of the device.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: h6, h10 (summary device evaluation).Summary device evaluation: the microcatheter used in the procedure was not evaluated as a part of this evaluation, so the investigation could not determine if it had caused or contributed to the reported complaint.The implant was the only component returned for evaluation.The investigation of the returned implant found the loops to be deformed at proximal.The stretch resistance monofilament was cut, and the implant regained shape.The shape loss appears to be the result of an increased tension in the monofilament - this issue is tracked by quality and manufacturing.The coil pusher was not returned for evaluation.Without the returned and evaluation of the pusher, the investigation is unable to determine the mode of separation (i.E.Unintentional vs normal detachment using a detachment controller); however, the implant was found with a tensile break mono shape at the proximal marker band which is consistent with the device experiencing excessive force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.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
|