|
The kit containing cc1.P1 and the ip2 (ip2p) introducer was returned for evaluation: device history record (dhr) - the dhr was reviewed and shows no abnormalities related to the reported failure.Failure analysis - the device was not returned with the packaging, and the probe was not returned with the protective sheath.The accessories were returned: probe and compression cap, and the returned product was decontaminated, the device was investigated visually and under the binocular microscope; the catheter of the probes is in its electrolytic solution.The electrodes wires are wavy and the positioning was not correct since the cathode was bent, it tips was more than 10 mm away from the tip, whereas the cathode tip should be at 2±1 mm + 3±1 mm from the probe¿s tip.The verification before using the monitor test passed; however, the functional probe test done in the air, failed; the obtained result is out of the range.As the test failed, the sections c and d were not performed.Root cause - the complaint is confirmed via the evaluation.The root cause of the observations is due to human misuse and/or atypical forces that were applied to the licox system causing lead kink marks and electrode twisting.Moreover, it is mentioned in section warnings of the ifu (bl675002 rev a) that; ¿the use of excessive force on any component of the licox system may cause damage and malfunction.All mechanical features of the licox system can be operated without the use of excessive force¿.Atypical forces were used on the device, which resulted in its current state.No corrective action is required based on the acceptability of risk and no adverse trends identified.This will be monitored and trended going forward.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.
|
|
A facility reported that the "kit containing cc1.P1 and the ip2 introducer (ip2p)" was inserted on thursday, april 10th and on april 12th, pbo2 started to read 500 and continued to do so.Temperature continues to read at normal patient baseline values, and a ct scan was completed to verify probe placement.A new machine and cable has been switched out and continued to read pbo2 at 500.Additional information received as follows: 1.What type of procedure was performed? answer: insertion of licox, after a few days the pbt02 began reading falsely high numbers.The average number was 500.2.Was there a delay in surgery due to product problem? if yes, how long was the surgical delay in minutes? answer: no 3.Has the probe already removed? if yes, please provide date of explantation.Answer: no 4.How was the patient monitored when the values were inaccurate? answer: a cerelink catheter was also insitu.We continued to monitor clinically and ignored the pbt02 values 5.Please confirm if there was another probe inserted? answer: yes a cerelink catheter was insitu 6.Patient outcome/status: answer: remains admitted in icu.
|