|
During an ercp performed by (b)(6) dr., when releasing the prosthesis, when the doctor pulled the trigger, the metal rod came out, without having pushed and released the prosthesis.The doctor had to replace this defective prosthesis with another, which lengthened the intervention time.Furthermore, the metal rod that came out of the guide could have damaged the endoscope sheath."as per cc form": placement of a biliary stent.When the nurse activated the delivery system trigger.A metal rod comes out of the carrier catheter.The prosthesis did not come out.Removal of the device.Use of an uncovered boston 4 cm stent.(emdr 3001845648-2023-00771) questions related to during insertion into patient 1.Was the product inspected for kinks or damage before use? no this file will capture user error of the customer not inspecting the device for damage before use.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.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 1.At what stage of the procedure did the complaint occur? when unpacking or preparing the evolution, while inserting the evolution in the patient, during stent placement, while removing the introducer, or during stent repositioning/removal.During stent placement 2.What endoscope type and channel size was used? see the form 3.What was the position of the elevator? n/a 4.Details of the wire guide used (diameter, type, make)? 0.35 5.Was the zip port facing upwards and slightly curved when backloading the wire guide? n/a 6.Did any part of the stent contact the patient¿s anatomy when the complaint occurred? yes 7.Please advise the anatomical location of the intended target site.Duodenum 8.How long was the stent in the patient by the time this complaint occurred? no information 9.For devices where the ifu states for longer term patency has not been established, was periodic evaluation completed? n/a 10.If yes, how often was this completed? 11.Did the patient require any additional procedures as a result of this event? no 12.What intervention (if any) was required? 13.Was the secondary intervention performed during the same procedure as the device failure or was it scheduled for another day? n/a, same procedure, another day 14.Were any other defects (other than the complaint issue) observed on the device prior to return (e.G.Kink)? n/a 15.If yes, please specify what was observed and where on the device it was observed.Stricture information: 1.What was the length and diameter of the stricture? no information 2.Where was the stricture located in the body? bile duct 3.Was there resistance felt passing wire guide through stricture? no 4.Was there resistance felt passing the evolution through stricture? no 5.Was the stricture dilated before stent placement? no questions related to during insertion into patient 1.Was the product inspected for kinks or damage before use? no 2.Was resistance felt during insertion into patient? no 3.If yes, at what point? questions related to during stent placement 1.Did the product fail during stent deployment or recapture? deployment 2.If other, please specify 3.Was the directional button pressed during use? no 4.Was any part of the stent observed in contact with the patient¿s anatomy at the time of failure? no 5.Was the yellow marker kept in view during deployment? yes 6.Are images of the device or procedure available? no questions related to during introducer withdrawal: undeployed stent 1.Are images of the device or procedure available? n/a, yes, no 2.Was final stent placement confirmed using endoscopy / fluoroscopy? n/a, yes, no 3.If yes, what was used? 4.Did the stent open sufficiently to allow withdrawal of introducer safely? n/a, yes, no 5.Was the safety wire fully removed before removing the delivery system? n/a, yes, no 6.Did any part of the product snag/get caught with the stent when removing the delivery system? n/a, yes, no questions related to during stent repositioning/removal (for evo-fc & evo-pc devices) not concerned 1.What instrument was used for stent repositioning / removal? forceps, snare, other 2.If other, please specify.3.Was resistance encountered during advancement and/or deployment? n/a, yes, no 4.If yes, please when this was felt? advancement or deployment 5.How did the physician deal with this resistance? 6.Was the lasso (suture) loop used during repositioning.
|
|
Device evaluation: user/use related complaints is considered foreseen misuse.It is unknown how the device will perform outside of instructions for use and/or labelling requirements.The user has not complied with the requirements of the ifu and/label.Trending will monitor if any future investigation is required.This file is related to (b)(4).Which was open to capture the stent release issue reported and (b)(4).Which captures the user error of the safety wire being removed before the the point of no return was passed.This file will capture user error of the customer not inspecting the device for damage before use.The evo-10-11-4-b of lot c1980686 involved in this complaint was returned for evaluation, with its original opened packaging.The device evaluation for the evo-10-11-4-b of lot c1980686 was complete on 29th september 2023.The returned device lab examination findings and observations can be referred through attached photos.On evaluation of the device the below was observed: visual inspection: - red safety tab not returned, - shuttle on 7th dimple, - directional button returned in deployment position, - stent partially deployed on return, - safety wire not returned.Functional inspection: - handle actuating fine for deployment and recapture, - on deployment, inner cannula becomes exposed/pushed from the back of handle, - stent deployed with no issue.Stent released from device as safety wire has been removed.Manufacturing records: prior to distribution all devices are subjected to a visual inspection and functional inspection to ensure device integrity.A review of the manufacturing records of lot number c1980686 did not reveal any discrepancies that could have contributed to this complaint issue.Instructions for use and/label the instructions for use, ifu0056 which accompanies this device, instructs the user that ¿¿ visually inspect with particular attention to kinks, bends and breaks.There is evidence to suggest that the customer did not follow the instructions for use.Image review: an image was not returned for evaluation.Root cause analysis: a definitive root cause was established.The user has not complied with the requirements of the ifu/label.The instructions for use, ifu0056 which accompanies this device, instructs the user that ¿¿ visually inspect with particular attention to kinks, bends and breaks.It is known from the available information that the device was not inspected before use.Confirmation of complaint: complaint is confirmed based on customer and/or rep testimony.Corrective action/ correction: complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.Summary of investigation: according to the customer the customer the device was not inspected before use.Confirmed quantity of 1 device, confirmed used.According to the initial report, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation findings conclude a definitive root cause was established.The user has not complied with the requirements of the ifu/label.
|