| Model Number |
100817HFRM-V-A2 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
08/06/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported, it is indicated that the coil device was released before reaching the aneurysm.The patient is reported to be fine.No harm was reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device was stated to be available for evaluation but has not yet been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.The alleged product issue could not be confirmed.If the device is returned at a later date, an investigation will be performed and a supplemental report will be submitted with the findings.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as potential complications associated with use of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The complaint sample was returned for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Evaluation of the physical device: items returned for evaluation: pusher; implant.Items not returned for evaluation: introducer; microcatheter.The visual analysis of the returned device found that the implant was not attached to the pusher.The implant was returned stretched at the proximal section and separated from the pusher.The investigation of the pusher found that the monofilament was broken, which indicates that the device experienced a tensile break.The investigation of the returned coil system found the implant stretched and separated from the pusher; however, no indications of activation using a detachment controller was found on the pusher heater coil.The investigation found the pusher's monofilament with a tensile break shape at the tip, which is consistent with the device experiencing force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the implant stretching, but it is consistent with the device experiencing forces exceeding the implant's yield strength.The microcatheter used in the procedure was not returned, so the investigation could not determine if it had caused or contributed to the reported complaint.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|