|
As reported, during a pelvic venogram, a flexor ansel guiding sheath's tip "crumpled up and tore" upon insertion of the sheath.Access was obtained in the right internal jugular vein.The access site was not scarred.Although four centimeters of the dilator tip advanced into the patient, resistance was encountered and the sheath was unable to be inserted over the dilator/into the patient.Another 9x45 sheath was opened and used to successfully complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a pelvic venogram, a flexor ansel guiding sheath's tip "crumpled up and tore" upon insertion of the sheath.Access was obtained in the right internal jugular vein.The access site was not scarred.Although four centimeters of the dilator tip advanced into the patient, resistance was encountered, and the sheath was unable to be inserted over the dilator/into the patient.Another 9x45 sheath was opened and used to successfully complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.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), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The distal sheath tip was bunched and split.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found two relevant non-conformances on five devices from sub-assembly lots; however, all affected product was scrapped.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿when puncturing, suturing or incising the tissue near the sheath, use caution to avoid damaging the sheath.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.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 to specification.Although two relevant non-conformances were noted on sub-assembly lots, all non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that additional non-conforming product exists in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design, contributed to this event.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.
|