|
It was reported, during a ureteral stone surgery in the urinary system, the user attempted to utilize the basket of an nforce nitinol helical stone extractor to remove ureteral calculi.The user advanced the device into the endoscope working channel to capture the stone and the basket would not open (refence this report).The user then changed to another same device (reference patient identifier (b)(6)) and the basket would not open.The user changed to a third same device to continue the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation: it was reported, during a ureteral stone surgery in the urinary system, the user attempted to utilize the basket of an nforce nitinol helical stone extractor to remove ureteral calculi.The user advanced the device into the endoscope working channel to capture the stone and the basket would not open (refence this report).The user then changed to another same device (reference patient identifier (b)(6) and the basket would not open.The user changed to a third same device to continue the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions (mi), and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection and functional test of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One device was returned in open package with label.The basket was closed and could not be opened.The basket sheath was damaged near the blue support sheath and also at the distal tip.Cook has concluded that the device was manufactured to specification.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 dhrs for the reported complaint device lot revealed no recorded non-conformances relevant to the failure mode.A complaint history search identified one other event reported for a related failure mode.Because there were no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities had been established, and there was objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, it was concluded that there was no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The product ifu, t _ ntse_ rev1; the ifu did not provide any information related to the reported issue.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, the cause for the issue could not be established.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the 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 toa death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|