|
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 coil embolization procedure in the left hepatic artery using ruby coils, ruby coil lps, a pod coil, a lp detachment handle (handle), a non-penumbra microcatheter, and a guidewire.During the procedure, the physician successfully implanted one pod coil.It was reported the patient¿s anatomy was tortuous.The physician then advanced a ruby coil using the microcatheter into the target vessel and attempted to detach the ruby coil using the handle; however, the ruby coil failed to detach.The physician attempted to manually detach the coil without success.Therefore, the ruby coil was removed.Subsequently, the same issue occurred with the next ruby coil lp.Therefore, the ruby coil lp was removed.Next, the physician advanced a new ruby coil lp into the target vessel and attempted to detach it using the handle; however, the ruby coil lp would not detach.The physician attempted to manually detach the coil without success.Therefore, the physician decided to remove the microcatheter and the ruby coil lp.Consequently, the ruby coil lp unintentionally detached in the right hepatic artery.Therefore, the physician attempted to use a snare device to remove the coil; however, it was unsuccessful.The ruby coil lp was left in the artery.The procedure ended at this point.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|