|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.H3: device evaluation anticipated, but not yet begun.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.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.
|
|
As reported, during a below-the-knee interventional procedure involving the right leg, the hub of a flexor raabe guiding sheath separated.Contralateral access was obtained in the left common femoral artery, and the access site was very scarred.The anatomy was scarred from multiple interventional procedures.Resistance was encountered upon both insertion and removal of the sheath.The hub reportedly popped off the sheath as the sheath was pulled back to remove access.The sheath shaft was removed manually from the patient.The patient did not require treatment for blood loss.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during a below-the-knee interventional procedure involving the right leg, the hub of a flexor raabe guiding sheath separated.Contralateral access was obtained in the left common femoral artery, and the access site was very scarred.The anatomy was scarred from multiple interventional procedures.Resistance was encountered upon both insertion and removal of the sheath.The hub reportedly popped off the sheath as the sheath was pulled back to remove access.The sheath shaft was removed manually from the patient.The patient did not require treatment for blood loss.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the returned device was also conducted.The used complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.Upon visual examination, it was noted that the entire sheath flare was pulled from the hub with nothing left inside the hub.No other damage was noted.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.Cook also reviewed the product ifu.It warns, ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿ it also warns, ¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ finally, it instructs during sheath removal to ¿-avoid applying traction to hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that patient anatomy contributed to this incident.The patient¿s anatomy was scarred from multiple interventional procedures, and the user encountered resistance upon both insertion and removal of the sheath.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|