|
As reported, at the end of a neurological procedure involving a thrombectomy to treat a stroke, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath.The patient had been previously hospitalized due to the stroke.Access was obtained in the femoral artery to target the carotid artery/brain.The anatomy was not tortuous, calcified, or scarred.It is unknown if resistance was encountered upon insertion or removal of the device.Upon removal of an unspecified thrombectomy catheter through the sheath, the hub of the sheath separated.The patient was sent to surgery for surgical removal of the separated device fragment.The patient is reportedly doing well.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Additional information has been requested.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, at the end of a neurological procedure involving a thrombectomy to treat a stroke, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath.The patient had been previously hospitalized due to the stroke.Access was obtained in the femoral artery to target the carotid artery/brain.The anatomy was not tortuous, calcified, or scarred.It is unknown if resistance was encountered upon insertion or removal of the device.Upon removal of an unspecified thrombectomy catheter through the sheath, the hub of the sheath separated.The patient was sent to surgery for surgical removal of the separated device fragment.The patient is reportedly doing well.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Additional information was requested; however, the customer did not respond.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found one relevant non-conformance on one device; however, the affected product was scrapped.A review of complaint history found no additional relevant complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states "if resistance is encountered during sheath advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿ the ifu also states ¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ 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, and ifu 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.Although one relevant non-conformance was noted on the lot, the non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that additional non-conforming product exists in house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, contributed to this event.Additional information regarding the event was requested; however, the customer did not respond.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.
|