|
It was reported, during a flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy stone removal procedure, when the user opened the package and took out the ncircle tipless stone extractor it was found the basket tip was broken.The user changed to another one to complete the procedure.This observation was made prior to patient contact.The customer provided a picture that appears to show the basket is missing a section of wire.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.Correction: d4 - primary udi number, g1 - contact office zip code.Investigation ¿ evaluation it was reported, during a flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy stone removal procedure, when the user opened the package and took out the ncircle tipless stone extractor it was found the basket tip was broken.The user changed to another one to complete the procedure.This observation was made prior to patient contact.The customer provided a picture that appears to show the basket is missing a section of wire.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient 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 ncircle tipless stone extractor was returned in an open package with label to cook for evaluation.Upon inspection no damage to the device was noticed aside from the basket had a broken wire.Handle actuated the basket formation.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 one related discrepancy that was scrapped during the manufacturing process.A search of the complaint database found no other complaints reported for 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 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 information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded a cause of the complaint cannot 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.
|