|
It was reported that the wire guide from a neff percutaneous access set was separated.This was noted during the product preparation, after flushing, but before the procedure.It was reported that the wire was not manipulated or withdrawn through the access needle or metal cannula as this was discovered before the procedure.The procedure was finished using other products.As reported, the patient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.Investigation ¿ evaluation: it was reported that the wire guide from a neff percutaneous access set was separated.This was noted during the product preparation, after flushing, but before the procedure.It was reported that the wire was not manipulated or withdrawn through the access needle or metal cannula as this was discovered before the procedure.The procedure was finished using other products.As reported, the patient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 (dhr), quality control procedures and manufacturing instructions of the device, were conducted during the investigation.The product was not returned to cook 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 controls are in place to detect this failure mode prior to release.A review of the device history record (dhr) for the device found three relevant nonconformances that could have contributed to the reported failure mode, in which all the non-conforming devices were scrapped.It should be noted that there were no other complaints associated with the final product lot number.Cook was unable to review the device labeling, as an ifu pamphlet is not included with the complaint device.Evidence gathered upon review of the dmr, dhr and no product return, cook was not able to find evidence suggesting the product was manufactured out of specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming product in house or in the field.Based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of our investigation, a definitive cause for the failure could not be determined.It is possible that the device was damaged during transport and was not noticed until the cleaning process.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.
|