|
H3: device has been returned, and preliminary evaluation has been performed, however, our investigation is ongoing, and device evaluation summary will be included in our follow up report once our investigation has been completed 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.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Correction: g1 address 1.It was reported the inner wall of the distal end of the outer sheath of a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilator detached during a retrograde intrarenal surgery (rirs).The sheath was successfully placed.During advance of the soft endoscope, resistance was encountered at the distal end of the device which prevented the endoscope from advancing.The procedure was completed by using another same-like device.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation ¿ evaluation: reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection and functional test, of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.A device failure analysis was conducted on the returned device.Upon inspection no visible damage to the outside of device was noticed.When looking down the hub you can see the inner wall is coming apart.Dilator will not transition through the sheath without difficulty.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-conformance's relevant to the failure mode.A lot history search found no other complaints had been reported for this lot.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 also reviewed product labeling.The product ifu, t_flxrp_rev5; 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 of the issue was not conclusively established.It is possible that the other devices inserted through the scope peeled the liner.However, no specific information was known about other devices used in the procedure.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.
|