|
E1 - customer (person): phone: (b)(6) h3 - device evaluated by mfg? device not returned to manufacturer.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 or that a death or serious injury occurred; nor is it admission that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
It was reported that the tip of the flexor sheath from a rosch-uchida transjugular liver access set was damaged.The device was required for a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (tips) procedure.When rinsing the product, it was found that the tip of the flexor sheath was broken and could not be used.The device was replaced with a new like-device to complete the procedure.The damaged device was discarded by the hospital.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|
|
Correction: h6 - annex a.Investigation ¿ evaluation.It was reported that the tip of the flexor sheath from a rosch-uchida transjugular liver access set was damaged.The device was required for a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (tips) procedure.When rinsing the product, it was found that the tip of the flexor sheath was broken and could not be used.The device was replaced with a new like-device to complete the procedure.The damaged device was discarded by the hospital.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), and quality control procedures of the device were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, 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 and the related subassembly lots revealed no recorded non-conformances relevant to the failure mode.A complaint history search identified no other events reported for the related failure mode.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.Cook did not review product labeling.The manufacturer does not apply an ifu for this product.Instructions for use are applied by the local distribution partner.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that component failure unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies contributed to this incident.It is possible the sheath tip became damaged during the preparation stage; however, this cannot be confirmed.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 to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|