|
As reported, upon completion of an unspecified angioplasty procedure, a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled upon removal of the device.The device was prepared and inserted without incident.No issues were noted during the procedure; however, resistance was encountered during removal, and the sheath appeared to be stuck in the groin.The user continued to pull the sheath out, at which point it unraveled and separated.The anatomy was calcified.Per the physician, the patient had extensive peripheral artery disease, which (per the physician) was the likely cause for the device becoming stuck, not due to product error.The device was successfully removed from the patient.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.
|
|
Initial reporter phone: (b)(6).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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, upon completion of an unspecified angioplasty procedure, a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled upon removal of the device.The device was prepared and inserted without incident.No issues were noted during the procedure; however, resistance was encountered during removal, and the sheath appeared to be stuck in the groin.The user continued to pull the sheath out, at which point it unraveled and separated.The anatomy was calcified.Per the physician, the patient had extensive peripheral artery disease, which (per the physician) was the likely cause for the device becoming stuck, not due to product error.The device was successfully removed from the patient.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), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned for investigation.The shaft of the sheath was separated near the hub with sheath material noted inside the hub.The inner coil was stretched and elongated, and kinks were noted along the full length of the shaft.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, ¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ 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 the patient¿s anatomy contributed to this event, a definitive cause for the failure could not be established.There is currently a capa investigation open to investigate this product 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.
|