|
As reported, following a cesarean delivery, a 'bakri tamponade balloon catheter' was used for treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (pph).Prior to use, the device was tested with water when the leakage was found at the connection between the balloon and the catheter.The procedure was completed by using same-type 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.The device did not make patient contact.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation.As reported, following a cesarean delivery, a 'bakri tamponade balloon catheter' was used for treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (pph).Prior to use, the device was tested with water when the leakage was found at the connection between the balloon and the catheter.The procedure was completed by using same-type 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.The device did not make patient contact.Reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control (qc) procedures, and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was returned without package or label.Upon visual inspection, it was noted that the balloon adhesion to the inflation tubing failed, allowing for leakage.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 device history record (dhr) found no related non-conformances that could have contributed to the reported failure mode.A complaint history database search showed one other related complaint associated with the failure mode for the complaint device lot.It should be noted that due to the individual nature of the manufacturing and inspection process for the devices in the lots, it is unlikely that these events are an indication of device issue within the entire lot.Because there were no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities had been established, 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 ifu packaged with the device contains the following in relation to the reported failure mode: how supplied "upon removal from the package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." based on the available information, inspection of returned device, and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the nature and cause of the issue could not be determined.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.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.
|