|
It was reported that during a kidney procedure, the user detected the basket of an nforce nitinol helical stone extractor could not be pushed out.Therefore, the user changed to a new basket to complete the procedure.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.
|
|
Correction: d4 - primary udi number, h6 (annex a and annex g).Investigation ¿ evaluation: it was reported that during a kidney procedure, the user detected the basket of an nforce nitinol helical stone extractor could not be pushed out.Therefore, the user changed to a new basket to complete the procedure.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, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions (mi), and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection and functional test of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One nforce nitinol helical stone extractor was returned for investigation, in open original packaging.Handle was in closed position.The collett and male luer lock adapter were tight.The polyethylene terephthalate tubing (spacer) was present in the handle.Handle does not actuate basket formation.Handle disassembled, does not manually actuate.Support sheath loose from basket sheath.Evidence of adhesive present.Section of the basket sheath has accordioned appearance.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 and the related subassembly lots revealed two related discrepancies in which three devices were scrapped as part of the manufacturing process.A complaint history search identified two other events reported for a similar reported issue.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.The evidence from the complaint file, device history record, complaint history and quality control documents indicates that the complaint device was manufactured to specification as well as other items in the lot or similar devices in the field or in house.The product ifu, t _ ntse_ rev1 was reviewed and includes following information to the user: precautions ¿ do not use excessive force to manipulate this device.Damage to the device may occur.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, the cause for the damage could not be established.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 toa death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|