| Model Number |
45-750617 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/02/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device was stated to be available for return to the manufacturer for evaluation but has not yet been returned.The alleged product issue could not be confirmed.If the device is received at a later date, an investigation will be performed and a supplemental mdr will be submitted.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as a potential complication associated with the use of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during the embolization procedure of a right renal artery, the coil prematurely detached from the pusher wire.While using a 6fr lima-shaped destination sheath with a 4fr glidecatheter, they had previously deployed four coils through this system.There were no issues advancing the coil through the glidecatheter.However, they lost catheter/sheath support towards the middle of the coil advancement and decided to recapture the coil.The physician started to pull back the pusher wire and the coil detached within the catheter/sheath.They were able to pull the glidecatheter out of the sheath and insert a snare to capture the coil.The coil was successfully removed with no patient harm.The procedure was finished with no further issues.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation conclusion: the investigation of the returned coil system found the implant coil stretched at the proximal section and separated from the pusher.The pusher was not returned for evaluation.The investigation found that the implant's monofilament at the tie knot showed a tensile break shape at the tip, which is consistent with the device experiencing force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the stretched implant, but stretching is consistent with the device experiencing forces exceeding the implant's yield strength.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Please see h6 and h11.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|