|
It was reported a patient underwent a ureteroscopy procedure with stone manipulation and laser lithotripsy in which the ncircle delta wire tipless stone extractor was used.The extractor was placed in the patient for a few seconds and removed.When removed it was noted the basket was flattened.It is unknown if the device was tested prior to use.A laser was used.The patient did not have tortuous, calcified or scarred anatomy.The procedure was completed with a competitor's device.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.Correction: d8, d9 h3 ¿ the device was not returned for evaluation.Investigation evaluation description of event: it was reported, a patient underwent a ureteroscopy procedure with stone manipulation and laser lithotripsy in which the ncircle delta wire tipless stone extractor was used.The extractor was placed in the patient for a few seconds and removed.When removed it was noted that the basket was flattened.It is unknown if the device was tested prior to use.A laser was used.The patient did not have tortuous, calcified or scarred anatomy.The procedure was completed with a competitor's device.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, quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions, and instructions for use (ifu) were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned.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.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that that the device was manufactured to specification and there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in the field.The product ifu, provides the following information to the user: precautions · the device is conductive.Avoid contact with any electrified instrument.· enclose the device in the sheath before removing from the tray/holder.· do not use excessive force to manipulate this device.Damage to the device may occur.How supplied upon removal from the package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.Based upon the available information and results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the cause for the complaint could not be established.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.
|