|
As reported, prior to a lower limb angioplasty, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's dilator tip was damaged/split.This was verified on the instrumentation table and the device did not make patient contact.The device was replaced with a new same-type device, without causing any harm to the patient.A photo provided by the customer shows that the tip of the dilator appears to be split.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Event summary: as reported, prior to a lower limb angioplasty, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's dilator tip was damaged/split.This was verified on the instrumentation table and the device did not make patient contact.The device was replaced with a new same-type device, without causing any harm to the patient.A photo provided by the customer shows that the tip of the dilator appears to be split.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.Investigation - evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures of the device were conducted during the investigation.No device was returned for investigation.A photo provided by the user confirms the dilator has a split in the distal tip.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.One relevant nonconformance was recorded for this product lot; the lone affected device was scrapped.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, ¿upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ based on the available information, cook has concluded that a component failure contributed to this failure mode.Cook will continue monitoring of similar complaints and has notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per a review of the 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.
|