|
As reported, during a femoral angiogram of the right leg, the middle of a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled and separated in the patient.Scarring and plaque were reported at the left groin access site.After the sheath separated, the physician obtained access lower in the leg and used an unspecified balloon device to push the sheath up to retrieve it.The sheath was removed in its entirety.The dilator was not in place at the time of separation.The procedure was completed.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a femoral angiogram of the right leg, the middle of a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled and separated in the patient.Scarring and plaque were reported at the left groin access site.After the sheath separated, the physician obtained access lower in the leg and used an unspecified balloon device to push the sheath up to retrieve it.The sheath was removed in its entirety.The dilator was not in place at the time of separation.The procedure was completed.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.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 (ifu), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath was separated, exposing the inner coil, with the distal section measuring approximately 16.3cm and the proximal section measuring approximately 52.2cm.Both sections were also accordioned.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The product ifu warns that reinsertion of the dilator prior to removal of the sheath ¿increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation¿ and suggests insertion of the dilator prior to removal if resistance is encountered or anticipated during withdrawal of the device.The information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that although it is possible that the patient¿s scarred anatomy and plaque, as well as unintended user error related to failure to reinsert the dilator contributed to the event, a definitive cause for this event cannot be established at this time.There is currently a capa investigation open to further investigate this failure mode.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|