| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/22/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A1: patient identifier: requested, not provided a2: age & date of birth: requested, not provided.A3: patient sex: requested, not provided.A4: weight: requested, not provided.A5: ethnicity: not provided for animal use.A6: race: not provided for animal use.D6a: implanted date: device was not implanted d6b: explanted date: device was not explanted e3: occupation: quality and process excellence analyst the actual device has not been returned for evaluation.The investigation is currently ongoing.A follow-up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The user facility reported that the touhy part of the sheath broke off when they removed the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) balloon.The blood loss was less than 250cc's.The procedure performed was peripheral.The reported event did not result in patient injury and/or medical or surgical intervention.There is not a direct allegation that the reported device caused or contributed to patient injury and/or need for medical intervention.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted as follow up no.1 to provide a correction to section d9 and to provide the completed investigation results.As of 07jun2024, the sample was not returned for assessment.If the sample is made available in the future, the complaint record will be reopened and updated.The complaint cannot be confirmed for valve separation because the sample was not returned for assessment.The exact root cause could not be determined.The complaint mentions that the valve separated when withdrawing the pta balloon.The likely root cause of the valve separation is that the balloon became caught on the valve and high tensional forces caused it to break.Review of the device history record (dhr) showed there were no issues noted during manufacture of the product that could have contributed to this complaint condition.Currently no action is recommended since this risk evaluation is within the predetermined limits in the design failure mode and effects analysis (dfmea).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|