| Model Number |
100510HFIL-V-A2 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
06/13/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with the reported 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 available for return to the manufacturer for analysis but has not been received yet.Therefore, the alleged product issue cannot be confirmed.If the device or new information is received, microvention inc.Will submit a supplemental report.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature and difficult or delayed coil detachment as potential complication associated with use of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the embolization coil was used to treat a patient with a pre-ruptured aneurysm.After positioning a microcatheter into the aneurysm sack, the physician started deploying coils.A framing coil was first placed followed by the hydrofill coil that encountered resistance inside the microcatheter.During attempt to pull back, the coil unintentionally detached inside the microcatheter.Consequently, the ruptured aneurysm was treated.Reportedly, the patient was left with some non-specified deficits.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information received.The physician indicated deficits could not be specified as the patient came in with a ruptured aneurysm with some deficits.The case was completed with other hydro coils.Patient was transferred to another hospital with no update of status.The device has not yet been returned to the manufacturer.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: h6, h10 (summary device evaluation).Summary device evaluation: the investigation of the coil system found the implant returned separated from the delivery system.The monofilament was found to experience a tensile break based on the profile of the tip.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
|