|
It was reported that: "patient information: sex: unknown, disease name: 4 mm aneurysm with bleb in a-com, procedure: emergency procedure, micro catheter: sl-10/stryker, phenom 17/medtronic, assist stent: unknown, y connector: unknown, used coils: as per below.Description: the physician attempted to framing the bleb using a target tetra (stryker) as the first coil.The target tetra coil was damaged in the process of repositioning and pulling back into the sl-10 microcatheter.Therefore, the entire microcatheter, including the coil, was retrieved with a snare and replaced with a new microcatheter, phenom17.After that, the optima 3x4 was placed as a framing coil, and the target nano (stryker) was placed.Then, the physician used the reported optima1x3 (lot# 211000213) and once in the process of pulling it back into the microcatheter for repositioning, and the physician felt the coil shredded and found the coil detached early inside the microcatheter.During use, the tip of the microcatheter was near the central area of the aneurysm, and there was no appearance of a loading force on the tip of the microcatheter.The coil was retrieved by pulling it into the microcatheter with the esperance¿ dac catheter.(it will be reported as ya2024-0228.) after continued use of the phenom17 and placing 5 optima implant coils, the physician used the optima1x2 (lot# 221000323) as the last coil.When the physician tried to insert the coil into the microcatheter, it would not come out form tip of introducer sheath.Then the physician stopped usage of the coil and completed the procedure.(it will be reported as ya2024-0231.) note; the procedure did not involve tortuous anatomy.It is unknown whether the before use check was performed or not." incident report form submitted for this complaint indicates that no patient injury was sustained.
|
|
Balt usa reference # (b)(4).An evaluation of the actual complaint sample could not be performed as device was unavailable to be return.Based on the provided information, root cause could not be definitively determined.Lack of device return prevented deeper evaluation of the reported issue.Review of the lot history records did not reveal any in-process or lot-specific issue that could account for the observation.No additional complaints against lot number f211000213 has been made for the same issue.Comprehensive analysis of this failure mode has remained subject to monitoring for any unacceptable increase in trend.The submission of this report or related information to the fda, and its release by fda, does not reflect a conclusion by the party submitting this report of the fda that the report or related information is an admission that the manufacturer, their employees, or the device caused or contributed to the reportable event.
|