|
It was reported, during retrograde intrarenal surgery (rirs) to remove a stone in middle calyx, the sheath of a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators was noted to have two or three scratches inside the sheath.The flexible scope became stuck inside the sheath.Another same device was used to complete the procedure.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.Investigation ¿ evaluation: it was reported, during retrograde intrarenal surgery (rirs) to remove a stone in middle calyx, the sheath of a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators was noted to have two or three scratches inside the sheath.The flexible scope became stuck inside the sheath.Another same device was used to complete the procedure.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions (mi), and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection were conducted during the investigation.One device was returned to cook for evaluation in an open package with label.Upon inspection, there wasn't obvious damage to the device.Unable to confirm any damage inside of the sheath.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 dhrs for the reported complaint device lot and the related subassembly lots revealed one related discrepancy in which one device was scrapped as part of the manufacturing process.A review of complaint history records showed no complaints associated with the complaint device lot.Based on the available information, 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 packaged with the device does not contain information relevant to the reported event.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, the cause for the issue 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 toa death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|