|
Evaluation of the returned swiftpac coil confirmed that the embolization coil was detached from the pusher assembly.Evaluation revealed that the pet lock was intact on the proximal end of the pusher assembly, the pull wire was in its initial position inside the pusher assembly distal tip, and the embolization coil was detached.If the swiftpac coil is retracted against resistance, the pusher assembly may elongate beyond the reach of the pull wire and allow the embolization coil to detach.Penumbra coils are visually inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the left middle meningeal artery (mma) using two swiftpac coils (swiftpacs), a benchmark bmx96 access system (bmx96), a midway 62 delivery catheter (midway 62), a non-penumbra microcatheter, and a guidewire.It was reported that the patient¿s anatomy was mildly tortuous.During the procedure, the physician attempted to place the swiftpac into the target vessel, but the swiftpac was too long for the target vessel.The physician decided to remove the swiftpac.While retracting the swiftpac, the physician experienced resistance and the swiftpac unintentionally detached in the interior maxillary artery (ima).It was reported that the physician decided to leave the swiftpac in the ima as there was no risk to the patient.While advancing another swiftpac through the same microcatheter, the physician experienced resistance and noticed that the swiftpac would not advance through the microcatheter.Therefore, the second swiftpac was removed.The procedure was completed using non-penumbra coils, the same bmx96, the same midway 62, the same microcatheter, and the same guidewire.
|