|
As reported, at the end of a peripheral procedure, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath upon removal of the sheath from the patient.Access was obtained in the left femoral artery to target the right superficial femoral artery.The anatomy was calcified, and resistance was reported upon removal of the device from the patient.The dilator was not in place upon sheath removal; however, another manufacturer's wire was in the sheath at the time of the event.The sheath was manually removed from the patient.The procedure had been completed successfully with the complaint device.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.
|
|
Occupation = lead tech.Device evaluated by mfg = device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, at the end of a peripheral procedure, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath upon removal of the sheath from the patient.Access was obtained in the left femoral artery to target the right superficial femoral artery.The anatomy was calcified, and resistance was reported upon removal of the device from the patient.The dilator was not in place upon sheath removal; however, another manufacturer's wire was in the sheath at the time of the event.The sheath was manually removed from the patient.The procedure had been completed successfully with the complaint device.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 used complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath was separated from the hub.No sheath material remained in the hub of the device.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 ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance, and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal¿ reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.¿ the ifu instructs the user ¿remove the sheath.Avoid applying reaction to the hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ 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 failure to follow instructions contributed to this event.The patient¿s anatomy was calcified, and resistance was encountered; however, the user stated that the dilator was not in place during removal of the sheath.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.
|