| Catalog Number |
RBYPODJ45 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012); Difficult or Delayed Separation (4044); Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/15/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the supravoderal artery using a pod packing coil (pod packing coil), a ruby coil detachment handle (handle), and a non-penumbra microcatheter.It was reported that the patient's anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the physician successfully implanted penumbra coils into the target vessel using the handle.While advancing the pod pc halfway through the microcatheter, the physician experienced resistance.The physician was able to advance the pod pc into the target vessel; however, the physician did not like how the pod pc was landing in the target vessel and began to retract the pod pc.While retracting the pod pc, the physician noticed under fluoroscopy that the pod pc unintentionally detached within the microcatheter.It was reported that the pod pc was implanted into its target location.The procedure was completed at this point.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the supravoderal artery using a pod packing coil (pod pc), a ruby coil detachment handle (handle), and a non-penumbra microcatheter.It was reported that the patient''s anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the physician successfully implanted penumbra coils into the target vessel using the handle.While advancing the pod pc halfway through the microcatheter, the physician experienced resistance.The physician was able to advance the pod pc into the target vessel; however, the physician did not like how the pod pc was landing in the target vessel and began to retract the pod pc.While retracting the pod pc, the physician noticed under fluoroscopy that the pod pc unintentionally detached within the microcatheter.It was reported that the pod pc was implanted into its target location.The procedure was completed at this point.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|