|
The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a thrombectomy procedure in the right m1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (mca) using a penumbra system ace 68 reperfusion catheter (ace68), a velocity delivery microcatheter (velocity), a penumbra system red 72 reperfusion catheter (red72), a penumbra engine (engine), a non-penumbra sheath, and a guidewire.During the procedure, the physician advanced the red72 over the velocity.It was reported that the patient¿s anatomy was tortuous.Therefore, the physician could only advance the red72 past the proximal tortuosity and tortuosity of the supraclinoid ica.However, the physician could not advance the red72 past the ophthalmic segment.Therefore, the red72 was removed from the patient.Next, the physician advanced the ace68 over the velocity to the target location and completed aspiration.Upon removal, it was noted the ace68 was broken at the distal part.Subsequently, the physician attempted to remove the distal part of the ace68 from the patient; however, it was unsuccessful.Therefore, the distal portion of the ace68 was left in the patient's vessel.
|
|
Please note that the following sections were incorrectly reported on the initial mfr report and are being corrected on this follow-up #01 mfr report:3005168196-2023-00042 1.Section g.Box 3.Report source 2.Section h.Box 10./11.Additional narrative please note that this complaint was submitted to the fda by the user facility with the following reference number:(b)(4).The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.H3 other text : placeholder.
|