|
It was reported that a salivary stone extractor basket sseb malfunctioned.The patient consented for left sialoendoscopy and siatholotomy with possible trans oral excision of the stone.During the procedure of sialendoscopy, the stone extractor got stuck and did not open and close properly in the surgical site.The surgeon then created a small opening under the tongue to remove the stone extractor and the stone.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged or unavailable.Correction: h6 - annex a.Investigation ¿ evaluation: it was reported that a salivary stone extractor basket sseb malfunctioned.The patient consented for left sialoendoscopy and siatholotomy with possible trans oral excision of the stone.During the procedure of sialendoscopy, the stone extractor got stuck and did not open and close properly in the surgical site.The surgeon then created a small opening under the tongue to remove the stone extractor and the stone.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Reviews of the documentation, including the complaint history, device history record, quality control procedures, manufacturing instruction and instructions for use of the device, were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned for evaluation; therefore, a physical examination could not be conducted.However, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.A review of the device history record (dhr) for the device found no nonconformances that could have contributed to the reported failure mode.It should be noted that there were no other complaints associated with the final product lot number.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The ifu did not provide any information related to the reported issue.Evidence gathered upon review of complaint file, dhr, complaint history, and quality control documents did not provide evidence to support that the device was manufactured out of specification or to suggest items in the lot or similar devices in the field or in house were nonconforming.Based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of our investigation, it was concluded that a definitive cause of the reported issue could not be determined with the information available at this time.Per the risk assessment no further action is required.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.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.
|