|
As reported, during a three-fenestration fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair procedure, the hub separated from a flexor introducer sheath upon removal of the device from a fenestration.The sheath was advanced into another manufacturer's 16fr device, with no problems during access.The anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified.A cook catheter and other manufacturer's wire guide were used through the sheath during the procedure.Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of the sheath nor was resistance felt during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.Upon removal of the sheath by the hub from the other manufacturer's 16fr device and over another manufacturer's wire guide, the hub separated.The dilator was not inserted prior to removal.The sheath was completely removed manually as it was "catchable" outside of the 16fr device.A new sheath from the same lot was inserted and used without problems.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.
|
|
E1: phone = (b)(6) h3: device evaluation anticipated but not yet begun.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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a three-fenestration fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair procedure, the hub separated from a flexor introducer sheath upon removal of the device from a fenestration.The sheath was advanced into another manufacturer's 16fr device, with no problems during access.The anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified.A cook catheter and other manufacturer's wire guide were used through the sheath during the procedure.Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of the sheath nor was resistance felt during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.Upon removal of the sheath by the hub from the other manufacturer's 16fr device and over another manufacturer's wire guide, the hub separated.The dilator was not inserted prior to removal.The sheath was completely removed manually as it was "catchable" outside of the 16fr device.A new sheath from the same lot was inserted and used without problems.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 flare had pulled free from the hub, with no sheath material remaining in the hub.No other damage was noted.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the lot.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu instructs ¿avoid applying traction to hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ 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 dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device and customer supplied photo suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that failure to follow instructions contributed to this event.Per the reporter, the device was removed from another manufacturer¿s sheath by pulling on the hub, and the dilator was not reinserted.The ifu states ¿avoid applying traction to hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ 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.
|