|
As reported by the field, during a coil embolization, the physician felt strong resistance during the use of deltafill18 20mm x 60cm coil (dlf182060, 30399403).Therefore, he used another same-like product and the procedure successfully finished.There was no patient injury reported.Based on the product analysis of the device received, the coil is noted to be mechanically detached from the delivery system and stretched.
|
|
Product complaint # :(b)(4).The purpose of this mdr submission is to report the findings of the device investigation.The coil is noted to be mechanically detached from the delivery system and stretched, meeting us regulatory reporting criteria.Section d2b ¿ procode: krd/hcg.Section e1 ¿ initial reporter: the customer contact information, including name, occupation, phone, fax, and e-mail address, was not reported.Missing information from this report is identified as blank; this information was not provided in the reported event or available at the time of report submission.A non-sterile deltafill18 20mm x 60cm was received contained in the decontamination pouch.Upon receiving the device, visual inspection was performed, and a slit was noted on the proximal end of the introducer, causing the corewire to protrude.Two (2) kinks were noted; the first at 114.4 cm, and the second at 149.5 cm.All measurements were taken from the distal end of the device.A microscopic inspection was performed, and a stretched condition was noted on the embolic coil towards the proximal end, and the embolic coil was found mechanically detached from the resistance heating (rh) coil.The introducer of the embolic coil was confirmed to be within specifications for the inner diameter (id).The distal outer sheath of the rh coil did not show evidence that it had been subjected to heat, which indicated that the detachment cycle had not been inadvertently initiated.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed, and no non-conformances related to the reported complaint condition were identified.The damage noted in the coil and delivery tube prevented the ability to move the coil to be evaluated through functional testing.However, such damages could be the result of the manipulation required to advance and withdraw the embolic coil from the introducer in an attempt to overcome the resistance/friction encountered during the insertion.It is possible that a continuous flush had not been done, without an adequate flush, issues such as resistance between the coil and the introducer can arise, resulting in force inadvertently being applied.According to the risk documentation, friction and difficulty to advance are potential issues that can occur during microcoil insertion due to continuous saline flush not being established, which can result in coil protruding.However, other factors not described in the event description may have contributed to the issue encountered during the procedure.With the information available there is no indication that the issue reported in the complaint results from a defect inherently related to the device.Based on this, the customer complaint regarding the resistance during the manipulation of the embolic coil was confirmed.As part of cerenovus quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Devices undergo 100% inspection at different points during the manufacturing process to prevent damages such as introducer kinking from leaving the facility.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no capa activity is required.It should be noted that multiple factors could cause product failure.The instructions for use (ifu) does contain the following recommendations: ¿ do not fasten the rhv valve too tightly around the introducer sheath since excessive pressure may cause damage to the introducer sheath and/or the microcoil as it is advanced into the infusion microcatheter.Additionally, if the introducer tip and microcatheter hub are misaligned, damage may occur to the microcoil as it passes through this transition.¿ if unusual friction is noticed during advancement or retraction of the microcoil system through the introducer, open the rhv main valve, and partially withdraw the distal end of the introducer to expose its tip within the rhv.Tighten the rhv main valve and flush the y-connector of the rhv with sterile saline and verify that fluid exits the slit in the clear portion of the introducer.¿ if unusual friction is still noticed during advancement or retraction of the microcoil system, verify flush lines are open and properly pressurized.Then slowly withdraw the entire microcoil system and examine for damage.Replace it with a new microcoil system.If friction still exists, withdraw and examine the delivery catheter system.Multiple attempts to obtain additional information were unsuccessful.If information is provided at a later date, the file will be reopened and processed accordingly.As part of the cerenovus quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended to identify statistical signals for consideration of further correction action.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by cerenovus, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, cerenovus, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|