|
As reported, the patient underwent an ureterorenolithotripsy procedure in which the universa soft ureteral stent set was used.During the procedure it was observed, the product was fragmented on proximal end.The product was replaced, and the procedure completed.Additional information has been requested regarding the patient and the event.At the time of this report, no further information has been provided.No section of the device remained inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.This report includes information known at this time.A follow up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Investigation evaluation: description of event: as reported, the patient underwent an ureterorenolithotripsy procedure in which the universa soft ureteral stent set was used.During the procedure it was observed, the product was fragmented on proximal end.The product was replaced, and the procedure completed.Additional information has been requested regarding the patient and the event.At the time of this report, no further information has been provided.No section of the device remained inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), and quality control (qc) procedures, the device, were conducted during the investigation.A device failure analysis was unable to be conducted as the device was not returned.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.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 review of the device history record (dhr) found no non-conformance's related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other related complaints associated with device lot.Because there are no related non-conformance's, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that the device was manufactured to specification and there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in the field.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The product ifu, contains the following information related to the reported failure mode.¿how supplied upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ cook has concluded that the cause for the complaint could not be established.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.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.
|