|
As reported, during ureteroscopy procedure in the kidney, the sheath of 'flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators' sheared internally.This issue occurred during passing of the cook's basket.There was no difficulty advancing the device.The fragments remained in the ureteral access sheath (uas), and nothing had to be removed from the patient.The stone was 1cm in size and was lasered into smaller pieces/fragments.An unspecified manufacturer's 200 micrometer fiber was used during the procedure.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.
|
|
Correction: d9, h3 - the device was not returned for evaluationinvestigation ¿ evaluation s reported, during ureteroscopy procedure in the kidney, the sheath of 'flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators' sheared internally.This issue occurred during passing of the cook's basket.There was no difficulty advancing the device.The fragments remained in the ureteral access sheath (uas), and nothing had to be removed from the patient.The stone was 1cm in size and was lasered into smaller pieces/fragments.An unspecified manufacturer's 200 micrometer fiber was used during the procedure.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, specifications, and instructions for use (ifu) of the complaint device were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, 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 does not contain information relevant to the reported event.Based on the information provided, no product returned, 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.
|