|
As reported, during an angiogram of the right lower leg, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's hub/valve separated.Ipsilateral approach was gained via pedal access targeting the tibial artery.Another manufacture's wire guide and cook cxi were used during the procedure.Upon removal of the sheath, the hub broke off, and resistance was felt "because of failure of device".Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of another device through the sheath.Nothing was in the lumen of the sheath when the separation occurred.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 the occurrence.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during an angiogram of the right lower leg, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's hub/valve separated.Ipsilateral approach was gained via pedal access targeting the tibial artery.Another manufacture's wire guide and cook cxi were used during the procedure.Upon removal of the sheath, the hub broke off, and resistance was felt "because of failure of device".Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of another device through the sheath.Nothing was in the lumen of the sheath when the separation occurred.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 the occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, 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 sheath had pulled free from the hub.The sheath flare was intact, and no sheath material was left inside the hub.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the lot.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ 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.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices 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 quality deficiencies, 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.
|