|
E3: occupation = rt(r) h3: device evaluated by mfg = other (81) - device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.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, the hub separated from a flexor ansel guiding sheath during an unspecified procedure.Contralateral access was obtained in the right groin to target the left leg.Although kissing stents were present in the iliac arteries, initial advancement of the sheath up-and-over the bifurcation was reportedly not impeded by the stents.The bifurcation angle was normal, and the anatomy was not significantly calcified or stenosed in the area in which the sheath was used.The sheath was advanced without difficulty and unspecified balloons and another manufacturer's laser were advanced through the sheath without issue.Upon attempted advancement of another manufacturer's stent system, the system would not advance through the sheath.The user removed the stent system, at which point the hub of the sheath separated.The sheath was exchanged for another of the same type, and the procedure was completed without further issue.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, the hub separated from a flexor ansel guiding sheath during an unspecified procedure.Contralateral access was obtained in the right groin to target the left leg.Although kissing stents were present in the iliac arteries, initial advancement of the sheath up-and-over the bifurcation was reportedly not impeded by the stents.The bifurcation angle was normal, and the anatomy was not significantly calcified or stenosed in the area in which the sheath was used.The sheath was advanced without difficulty and unspecified balloons and another manufacturer's laser were advanced through the sheath without issue.Upon attempted advancement of another manufacturer's stent system, the system would not advance through the sheath.The user removed the stent system, at which point the hub of the sheath separated.The sheath was exchanged for another of the same type, and the procedure was completed without further issue.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.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection and dimensional verification of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The hub was separated from the sheath tubing.Measurements were within specification.The shaft was compressed in two areas, and the flare was damaged.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the lot.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿remove the sheath.Avoid applying traction to hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.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 to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that procedural issues likely contributed to the event, as the device measured within specification.It is possible that the competitor¿s stent may have contributed to the hub separation; however, the stent was not returned to test compatibility.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.
|