|
As reported, during embryo transfer (ivf) procedure, an unspecified protruding foreign body was identified upon microscopic examination on the inner wall of the outer 'guardia access embryo transfer catheter'.This issue was discovered when the clinical instructor observed that the inner catheter could not pass through the outer catheter.The procedure was completed successfully using a new outer catheter.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation: as reported, during embryo transfer (ivf) procedure, an unspecified protruding foreign body was identified upon microscopic examination on the inner wall of the outer 'guardia access embryo transfer catheter'.This issue was discovered when the clinical instructor observed that the inner catheter could not pass through the outer catheter.The procedure was completed successfully using a new outer catheter.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.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions (mi), and quality control (qc) procedures were conducted during the investigation.Functional tests and visual inspection of the returned complaint device was also conducted.Only one guide catheter was returned for investigation in a sealed inner pouch.After removing from the sealed package, a wire was able to pass completely through the guide catheter.No foreign matter was noted.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 device history record (dhr) found no confirmed relevant discrepancies on the lot.A search of complaint history found no related complaints on the lot.Because adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and based on review of complaints from associated with the product lot, 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 supplied with the device did not provide any information related to the reported issue.Based upon the available information, inspection of the returned device, and results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the cause for the complaint could not 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 to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|