|
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 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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.Correction/additional information: d9 h3: device evaluated by mfg = device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.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 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.
|
|
Correction: d4 primary udi, h6 annex g.Summary of event: as reported, during an unknown procedure, the hub of a flexor shuttle tibial guiding sheath separated from the device.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath hub was separated from the sheath with no sheath material noted in the hub.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found that five devices from the final lot did not pass inspection during the building phase; however, the affected products were scrapped prior to release from cook.A review of complaint history found no additional relevant complaints for the final or sub-assembly lots.The product ifu states, ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The information provided upon review of the returned device, ifu, complaint file, dmr, and dhr suggests that there is evidence that the device was manufactured to specification.Although five devices from the final lot did not pass inspection during the building phase, the products were scrapped prior to release from cook, there are 100% inspections in place, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that devices manufactured out-of-specification exist in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, contributed to this incident.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed, and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|