| Catalog Number |
PG6F45S |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
09/23/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The account alleges that during a peripheral vascular intervention procedure, the tip of the dilator detached.During preparation of the primary access sheath, the sheath was manually curved by clinical staff with a 10cc syringe, with the dilator in place.The physician had successfully acquired contralateral retrograde right femoral artery access via the "seldinger technique" with the primary access sheath and had negotiated the patient's right iliac bifurcating conduit crossing over the iliac arch and accessing the left antegrade iliac conduit over a stiff angled.035x260 guidewire, under fluoroscopy.The introducer was then removed from the sheath.After removal, the supporting clinical staff noted that the tip looked "blunted" causing the attending clinician to further investigate the introducer confirming the tip of the introducer had detached.Additional fluoroscopy was necessary as they attempted to unsuccessfully locate the detached tip within the patient's anatomy.The clinician then attached a 20cc syringe to the hub of the primary access sheath and continuously aspirated while removing the access sheath from the patient's anatomy.The clinician held pressure while the primary access site was secured by temporarily placing a separate 6f sheath.The primary access sheath was investigated further by the clinical team.A syringe was connected to the end of the access sheath and vigorously flushed.The detached dilator tip was successfully located as it was flushed from within the primary access sheath.A competitor's sheath was then placed, and the procedure was successfully completed for this patient.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The suspect device has returned for investigation.A follow-up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The suspect medical device was returned for evaluation.The device was visually and microscopically investigated and functional testing was performed.The complaint is confirmed.The root cause could not be determined.The device history record was reviewed, and no exception documents were found.A search of the complaint database was performed and no similar complaints for this lot number were identified.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|