| Model Number |
M00557001 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Nonstandard Device (1420); Defective Device (2588)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Perforation (2001)
|
| Date of Event |
05/06/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Note: this report pertains to two jagwire revolution, dreamtome and an autotome rx 39 device that were used in the same patient and procedure.It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a jagwire revolution was attempted to be used in the common bile duct during an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ercp) procedure to treat a stone performed on (b)(6) 2025.During the procedure, the physician could not cannulate with a dreamtome.The physician switched to a jagwire revolution in an autotome rx 39.The physician performed a wire guided cannulation, and the wire appeared to be in the duct.When the contrast was injected, it appeared that the wire may have perforated the duct.The physician then went back to dreamwire but it appeared to follow the same path.It was reported that the wire is stiff and there is a lack of feel if it is perforating.The procedure was discontinued, and the patient was sent to ir (interventional radiology).There patient's current condition is good and expected to fully recover.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Block h6: imdrf patient code e2114 is being used to capture the reportable event of event perforation.Imdrf impact code f1001 is being used to capture the reportable event of aborted/cancelled procedure.Imdrf impact code f2203 is being used to capture the reportable event of imaging required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Note: this report pertains to two jagwire revolution, dreamtome and an autotome rx 39 device that were used in the same patient and procedure.It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a jagwire revolution was attempted to be used in the common bile duct during an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ercp) procedure to treat a stone performed on (b)(6)2025.During the procedure, the physician could not cannulate with a dreamtome.The physician switched to a jagwire revolution in an autotome rx 39.The physician performed a wire guided cannulation, and the wire appeared to be in the duct.When the contrast was injected, it appeared that the wire may have perforated the duct.The physician then went back to dreamwire but it appeared to follow the same path.It was reported that the wire is stiff and there is a lack of feel if it is perforating.The procedure was discontinued, and the patient was sent to ir (interventional radiology).There patient's current condition is good and expected to fully recover.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Block h6:
imdrf patient code e2114 is being used to capture the reportable event of event perforation.Imdrf impact code f1001 is being used to capture the reportable event of aborted/cancelled procedure.Imdrf impact code f2203 is being used to capture the reportable event of imaging required.Block h11: investigation results
the device was not returned for analysis and was reported to be disposed; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.With all the available information, boston scientific concludes that the reported event of perforation could not be confirmed.The device was not returned because it was disposed.There is not enough evidence to determine whether the reported device problem was induced due to the physician's technique during the procedure or was related to a device malfunction, the probable cause of the reported problem cannot be established.Without analysis of the actual device, there is a lack of objective evidence, or descriptive conditions of the event required to determine a probable root cause of the event.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed.The review of the dhr identified that there were no process related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during the production that could explain the event.The reviews ensure each device meets specification prior to release for use.There is no indication the device manufacturing process contributed to the reported complaint.Review of the instructions for use (ifu) confirmed there was relevant content and sufficient guidance with respect to the circumstances described within this complaint.No updates are required to the ifu as a result of this event.Based on a thorough review of the reported complaint, boston scientific has assigned an investigation conclusion code of cause not established.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|