|
It was reported, a patient underwent an ureteroscopy procedure in which a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators were used.The user noticed when attempting to enter the sheath on the first attempt with the ureteral scope, that the plastic was already falling off the catheter inner liner.The ureteroscope and forceps were used to remove the plastic.The sheath and dilator were not separated during activation.It was unknown if the hydrophilic coating was activated before use, what medium used, or how long it took to activate the coating.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.Corrected information: h6: component code (annex g).Investigation evaluation: description of event: it was reported, a patient underwent an ureteroscopy procedure in which a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators were used.The user noticed when attempting to enter the sheath on the first attempt with the ureteral scope, that the plastic was already falling off the catheter inner liner.The ureteroscope and forceps were used to remove the plastic.The sheath and dilator were not separated during activation.It was unknown if the hydrophilic coating was activated before use, what medium used, or how long it took to activate the coating.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 documentation including the complaint history, quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions (mi), and instructions for use (ifu) were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned.A photo was provided by the user that showed the long string of plastic material that came from the inside of the sheath.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-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other related complaints associated with device lot.Based on the available information, cook has concluded that the device was manufactured to specification and that there is no evidence suggesting nonconforming product exists either in house or in the field.The ifu did not provide any information related to the reported issue.Based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of the investigation, the specific cause for the issue could not be established.It is possible that an interaction between the scope and the sheath of the flexor device caused the scraping of the inner liner of the sheath, however, the specific nature of the possible interaction is not known.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.
|