| Model Number |
FG-36045-001 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
02/09/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The root cause of the incident is unknown at the time of the initial report.The complaint device will not be returned for an evaluation.The dhr review, which examines the dhr, ncrs, and ecos will be done as part of the root cause investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The customer reported as follows: "case was coming to the end and as the physician was pulling the sheath out the sheath unraveled inside the patient." patient present at time of event?: yes patient complications: no patient complications device/procedure outcome: procedure completed, original device used type of procedure: angiogram.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device was not returned back to the manufacturer for the evaluation.Based on similar complaints for devices which were investigated and tested, it is likely the sheath experienced a similar failure mode.Additionally, dhr review did not provide any evidence the failure could have been process related.From the complaint description, the failure would have possibly been caused by the effects of sheath kinking and pull force through a complex anatomical path.The kinking would have occurred because of the complex anatomical path leading to weakening or breakage of the sheath while the removal process would have resulted in the coils separating from the broken shaft section.Since it was not possible to get additional information about the applied procedure after the operation, it is unknown whether the clinician had inserted the dilator during removal of sheath as required per ifu.However it is a possibility that the dilator might have not been used and it might have played a role on sheath unravelling.Without the device being available for evaluation, conclusive data could not be gathered for this complaint.Based on similar occurrences, the failure was unlikely to be a result of a design or process issue as shown in previous complaints.This would be supported by the fact that the catapult family of sheaths was shown to pass kink stability and tensile strength test requirements, and there were no manufacturing irregularities.It is possible that the sheath failure was a result of subsequent stresses introduced due to the difficult path leading to unintended breakage during removal of the sheath from the patient.Since it was not possible to get additional information about the applied procedure after the operation, it is unknown whether the clinician had inserted the dilator during removal of sheath as required per ifu.However it is a possibility that the dilator might have not been used and it might have played a role on sheath unravelling.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|