|
ST PAUL DELTEC PORT-A-CATH II PORTS; PORT AND CATHETER, IMPLANTED,SUBCUTANEOUS,INTRAVAS
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
21-4083-24 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fluid/Blood Leak (1250)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
11/09/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation including root cause analysis is in progress.A supplemental mdr will be filed as necessary in accordance with 21 cfr 803.56 when additional reportable information becomes available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that after the patient was implanted in the infusion port, he found that the right breast and side of the chest were swollen with slight pain, and physical examination: the outer quadrant of the right breast and the tissue near the port seat of the side chest near the port of infusion were edematous, the skin was not red and swollen, and it was mildly tender.Contrast examination shows that there is a small amount of contrast agent in the catheter part, and after local treatment, local pain, swelling and other symptoms are relieved.Expert identification: 1 drug extravasation 2 catheter leakage.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Other, other text: h6: event problem and evaluation codes: updated.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer: updated.H10: device evaluation: one (1) photo was attached to the complaint created.The photo was used to conduct the device analysis since the physical unit had not been received.The photo, an x-ray image, showed an implanted port-a-cath port and a catheter.In the image part of the catheter, a splat in the catheter was observed.Thus, the reported failure mode, leaking catheter, was confirmed from the photo provided.However, no product had been received to conduct a functional test.After reviewing the mitigations that were performed during the manufacturing process, and analyzing the photo provided, the root cause of the failure mode could not ne be determined.No corrective actions were required because the mitigations in place were revised and executed in accordance with procedure.This failure will continue to be monitored to determine if new actions need to be taken.A device history record (dhr) review was conducted which indicated all inspections were completed and no issues were noted during manufacture.This remediation mdr was generated under protocol (b)(4), as a result of warning letter (b)(6).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|