|
It was reported after advancing the ncircle tipless stone extractor into the ureter and attempting to place the stone in the basket, the physician found that the basket wire had severed.The complaint device was replaced with a new same-like device (lot unknown) to complete the procedure.The device was inspected prior to use and was undamaged.The device was tested in its uncoiled position and the basket operated correctly.No laser was used during basket operation, and there were no anatomical issues preventing the basket from opening or closing.The handle was not positioned straight toward the patient or pointed at the ceiling.No parts separated.The patient was under anesthesia.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, unavailable, or unchanged.Correction: h6 (annex g).Investigation ¿ evaluation.It was reported after advancing the ncircle tipless stone extractor into the ureter and attempting to place the stone in the basket, the physician found that the basket wire had severed.The complaint device was replaced with a new same-like device (lot unknown) to complete the procedure.The device was inspected prior to use and was undamaged.The device was tested in its uncoiled position and the basket operated correctly.No laser was used during basket operation, and there were no anatomical issues preventing the basket from opening or closing.The handle was not positioned straight toward the patient or pointed at the ceiling.No parts separated.The patient was under anesthesia.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, specifications, and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One device was returned to cook for evaluation.Upon visual inspection, the support sheath was noted to be separated at the base of male leur lock adaptor (mlla).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 no recorded discrepancies relevant to the failure mode.A review of complaint history records found no other related complaints associated with the failure mode for 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 contains the following in relation to the reported failure mode: -the device is conductive.Avoid contact with any electrified instruments.-do not use excessive force to manipulate this device.Damage to the device may occur.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, a potential cause for this event 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.
|