|
E1: customer name and address= city: fredericton, new brunswick postal code: e3b 5n5 e3: occupation = interventional suite supervisor.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.
|
|
As reported, during preparation of the device for a uterine artery embolization procedure, a flexor ansel guiding sheath's dilator stretched.The device was flushed, and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the dilator into the sheath.The user removed the dilator from the sheath, and the distal end of the dilator was noted to be elongated/stretched.The device did not make patient contact.Another cook flexor sheath was used to complete the procedure, without further issue.A photo provided by the customer shows stretching/elongation of the distal end of the dilator.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during preparation of the device for a uterine artery embolization procedure, a flexor ansel guiding sheath's dilator stretched.The device was flushed, and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the dilator into the sheath.The user removed the dilator from the sheath, and the distal end of the dilator was noted to be elongated/stretched.The device did not make patient contact.Another cook flexor sheath was used to complete the procedure, without further issue.A photo provided by the customer shows stretching/elongation of the distal end of the dilator.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, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The prior-to-use complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The distal tip of the dilator was deformed/stretched/elongated and would therefore not flush.Discussions with manufacturing quality engineers determined that the most likely cause for this damage was the tip of the dilator being within the package seal during the sealing process.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other relevant complaints for this lot number.Cook also investigated all lots manufactured and checked by the same personnel during the same week as the complaint device.One relevant non-conformance was noted for dilator damage within the package; however, all affected product was scrapped, and 100% inspections are in place to capture the non-conformance prior to distribution.No relevant complaints were found on the lots.As such, cook has concluded that this was an isolated event.The product ifu states ¿upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ 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 out of specification; however, there is no evidence of additional 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 a manufacturing and quality control deficiency contributed to this event, as the damage to the dilator indicates that the tip was caught in the package seal during the packaging/sealing process.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.
|