|
As reported, the patient underwent an unspecified procedure in which a 'filiform double pigtail ureteral stent set' was implanted in the left ureter.During stent removal by the physician, it broke into three pieces.All pieces were subsequently removed using a reusable grasper.An unspecified manufacturer's cystoscope and stent retriever were used during removal.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, the patient underwent an unspecified procedure in which a 'filiform double pigtail ureteral stent set' was implanted in the left ureter.During stent removal by the physician, it broke into three pieces.All pieces were subsequently removed using a reusable grasper.An unspecified manufacturer's cystoscope and stent retriever were used during removal.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 documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was returned to cook for evaluation.Upon visual inspection, the stent was returned with encrustation and in several pieces.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: ¿precautions.Do not force set components during placement, replacement, or removal.Carefully remove the set components if any resistance is encountered.¿ ¿how supplied upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ 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.
|