| Model Number |
45-752039 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Stretched (1601); Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/17/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device was implanted in the patient and will not be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.However, the pusher component of the device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.The investigation is ongoing.Upon completion of the investigation, a supplemental mdr will be submitted.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature coil detachment as a potential complication associated with the use of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a splenic embolization procedure, two coils became elongated.The physician attempted to retrieve the coils; however, both of them prematurely detached.A wire was used to push the coils backed into the vessel.The procedure was completed successfully.The patient is doing well.This report addresses the first coil.The second coil will be reported in a separate submission that references a different mfr report number.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The investigation of the returned coil system found the pusher heater coil kinked the pusher kinked within the outer sleeve at approximately 4cm from the strain relief.The pusher was also returned without the implant attached but no indications of activation using a detachment controller was found on the pusher heater coil.The implant was not returned for evaluation as it was pushed back into the vessel as described in the reported event.The investigation found the pusher¿s monofilament with a tensile break shape at the tip, which is consistent with the device experiencing force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the pusher damage, but the damage is consistent with the device experiencing forces exceeding the pusher's yield strength.The catheter used in the procedure was not returned, so the investigation could not determine if it had caused or contributed to the reported complaint.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
See h11.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|