| Model Number |
GS-R6ST1C12W |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/12/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A1: patient information: requested, not provided.D4: lot #: requested, unknown.D4: expiration date: unknown, as the involved product lot # was unknown.D6a: implanted date: device was not implanted.D6b: explanted date: device was not explanted.H4: device manufacture date: unknown, as the involved product lot # was unknown.The production lot # was not provided by the user facility, which prevented a meaningful review of the device history record.The actual device is not available for return.The investigation is currently ongoing.A follow-up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The user facility reported that the inolved sheath broke during a procedure.The doctor was using a destination slender in a patient with a very small radial artery and applied too much force.Resistance was felt with the sheath, and when he withdrew it, it broke.The break occurred outside the body.There was no injury to the patient, and the entire sheath was removed without leaving any pieces inside.The procedure performed was a carotid stent.The patient's condition was stable.Relevant tests were not provided.There was no blood loss, as it was not applicable pre-operatively.There was no injury described.There is no direct allegation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being sent as follow-up no.1 to provide the completed investigation results.The actual device was not returned; therefore, an evaluation of the actual device was unable to be conducted.The complaint cannot be confirmed for a sheath breakage because a sample was not returned for assessment.Without a sample, the exact root cause cannot be determined.The likely root cause is the radial artery was too small for the r2p sheath and led to increased resistance at the access site.The r2p ifu was reviewed, and it states: "before use, use an appropriate diagnostic method, such as ultrasound to make sure the sheath size (fr.) is appropriate for the access vessel and the interventional / diagnostic device to be used.While inserting or withdrawing, if resistance is met, do not advance or withdraw the sheath until the cause of the resistance has been determined." review of dhr cannot be completed due to the unknown lot number.Currently, no action is recommended since the risk evaluation is within the predetermined limits in the hazard based risk table (hbrt).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|