| Model Number |
45-750617 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Stretched (1601); Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
09/26/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported during placement of an embolization coil implant in the ima, it was observed that part of the coil filar from the primary wind came unwound and was floating back into the aorta.The physician attempted to remove and re-sheath the coil and it unintentionally detached and could not be withdrawn.The physician had to snare the coil to remove it and switched to a balt coil.To do this, the physician placed a microcatheter and successfully placed and deployed other coils to finish the embolization.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device the device was stated to be available for return to the manufacturer for evaluation, but has not yet been returned.The alleged product issue could not be confirmed.If the device is received at a later date, an investigation will be performed and a supplemental mdr will be submitted.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as a potential complication associated with the use of the device.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation conclusion: the investigation of the returned coil system found the implant stretched at the proximal section and separated from the pusher.The pusher was not returned for evaluation.The investigation found that the implant's monofilament showed a tensile break shape at the tip, which is consistent with the device experiencing force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the stretched implant, but stretching is consistent with the device experiencing retraction forces over specification.The catheter used in the procedure was not returned for evaluation, so the investigation could not determine if it had caused or contributed to the reported complaint.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|