| Model Number |
45-751324 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/27/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
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 returned to the manufacturer for evaluation, and the investigation is ongoing.Upon completion of the investigation, 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a splenic aneurysm embolization via femoral access into the celiac artery, and prior to inserting the new coil into the catheter, the physician made sure the catheter was flushed.As the coil was being advanced, it became stuck within the catheter.The physician could not advance the coil past a certain point, and during an attempt to retract the coil, the proximal portion of the coil would move but the distal portion would not move in tandem.The coil then became stuck in the catheter and detached from the pusher wire, and the catheter and coil were completely removed in their entirety from the patient.Another coil was used, and the physicians were able to deploy the coil.The physician finished coiling the outflow and inflow splenic artery with approximately 8 coils.The patient remained stable throughout and the procedure was a success.
|
| |
|
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 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Please see section h10 for investigation results.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|