As reported, a ngage nitinol stone extractor could not be opened and closed properly.The issue was noted prior to the procedure, and the device was not used on the patient.It was noted that other products from the same lot worked properly during the procedure.Additional event and patient outcome information has been requested.
|
Additional information: d9.Event summary: as reported, a ngage nitinol stone extractor could not be opened and closed properly.The issue was noted prior to the procedure, and the device was not used on the patient.It was noted that other products from the same lot worked properly during the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional intervention due to this occurrence.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 and a visual inspection and functional test of the device were conducted during the investigation.The device was returned in an open pouch without the shipping tray.The yellow support sheath was observed to be severely bent.Slight damage to the basket sheath was also found, with scrape marks and the outer layer peeling in places.A functional test found the basket would close but not fully open.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 state, ¿important: excessive force could damage device.¿ based on the available information, cook has concluded that a cause for this event could not be established.The cause for the observed device damage is unknown.Excessive force may have been inadvertently applied to the device, but no information was provided regarding device handling.Therefore, the cause of the issue could not be conclusively determined.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.
|
B5: clarification information received 28apr2022.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.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.
|