|
It was reported that tracheal injury occurred during use of a blue rhino g2-multi percutaneous tracheostomy introducer set.A 61-year-old male underwent a bedside bronchoscopy and percutaneous tracheostomy placement procedure.The guide wire was inserted first, and then the blue rhino dilator was used to further dilate the tracheostomy site.A #8 cuffed tracheotomy tube was inserted and then was removed to clarify the placement.The bronchoscopy was advanced through the endotracheal tube (ett), and a tear in the posterior tracheal wall was visualized.Ventilation was then resumed.Diagnostic studies, including a computed tomography scan and chest x-ray, and a thoracic consult were ordered.The patient was not a surgical candidate due to high co-morbidities and required a double lumen ett.Per physician notes, bilateral chest tubes were inserted secondary to the incident.The indication for the right sided chest tube was a pneumothorax resulting from the incident.The left sided chest tube was inserted as a prophylactic measure secondary to the high risk of pneumothorax.It is unknown if the tracheal wall injury was caused by the wire guide or the blue rhino dilator.The customer believes the j curve was missing from the guidewire prior to insertion but is unable to verify.No foreign body in patient was seen on post procedure imaging.Though the wire guide appears without a j curve in the customer provided photo, the exact failure mode of the device is unclear from the picture.No other adverse effects were reported for this incident.
|
|
Correction: h6 - annex a and g.Investigation ¿ evaluation.It was reported that tracheal injury occurred during use of a blue rhino g2-multi percutaneous tracheostomy introducer set.A 61-year-old male underwent a bedside bronchoscopy and percutaneous tracheostomy placement procedure.The guide wire was inserted first, and then the blue rhino dilator was used to further dilate the tracheostomy site.A #8 cuffed tracheotomy tube was inserted and then was removed to clarify the placement.The bronchoscopy was advanced through the endotracheal tube (ett), and a tear in the posterior tracheal wall was visualized.Ventilation was then resumed.Diagnostic studies, including a computed tomography scan and chest x-ray, and a thoracic consult were ordered.The patient was not a surgical candidate due to high co-morbidities and required a double lumen ett.Per physician notes, bilateral chest tubes were inserted secondary to the incident.The indication for the right sided chest tube was a pneumothorax resulting from the incident.The left sided chest tube was inserted as a prophylactic measure secondary to the high risk of pneumothorax.It is unknown if the tracheal wall injury was caused by the wire guide or the blue rhino dilator.The customer believes the j curve was missing from the guidewire prior to insertion but is unable to verify.No foreign body in patient was seen on post procedure imaging.Though the wire guide appears without a j curve in the customer provided photo, the exact failure mode of the device is unclear from the picture.No other adverse effects were reported for this incident.Reviews of the documentation, including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), drawing, quality control procedures and specifications, as well as a visual inspection and dimensional verification of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.Cook received two wire guides from the customer.The prior to use wire had a curved tip.The used wire was missing the curve and was sheared.The true length of the broken wire cannot be obtained as the length is based on the curve.Dimensional analysis confirmed that the device and components were manufactured to the correct specifications and tolerances.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) for the device lot and related subassembly lots found no relevant nonconformances that could have contributed to the reported failure mode.It should be noted that there were no other complaints associated with the final product lot number.Evidence gathered upon review of the dmr, dhr, and device failure analysis, does not indicate the device was manufactured out of specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming material in house or in the field.Based on the information provided, examination of the returned product, and the results of our investigation, it was concluded that a component failure unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies contributed to the reported event.It is possible that the wire became damaged during or after insertion, however cook cannot confirm this.Per the risk assessment no further action is required.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.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.
|