|
As reported, prior to use during a lower limb balloon dilation procedure, a flexor balkin guiding sheath's dilator was removed from the sheath and the hub separated.A new same type device was used to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, prior to use during a lower limb balloon dilation procedure, a flexor balkin guiding sheath's dilator was removed from the sheath and the hub separated.A new same type device was used to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.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.A visual inspection and functional test of the complaint device was also conducted.The prior-to-use complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The dilator hub was separated, and no adhesive was noted on the dilator shaft.Twelve unused, sealed devices were also returned to cook.The devices were opened, and the hubs were pulled; however, none of the hubs separated from the unused devices.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the complaint lot, raw material lot, or on any other final lot manufactured with the same raw material lot as the complaint device.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number or on any other final lot manufactured with the same raw material lot as the complaint device.The customer followed relevant instructions in the ifu (instructions for use).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 supplier investigation was requested.The supplier concluded that the supplied component was not manufactured to specification.The information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured out of specification; however, there is no evidence of additional non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a supplier manufacturing and supplier quality control deficiency contributed to this event.Responsible personnel were notified.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.
|