|
It was reported, the 'roadrunner nimble hydrophilic wire guide' came out of its silicone packaging.The product was replaced before the procedure began.The device was returned 08jan2026 and the preliminary dfa found the wire guide was separated.The outer coating was completely broken, and the inner coil was exposed.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.E1: occupation: quality specialist, phone: (b)(6).Investigation-evaluation it was reported, the 'roadrunner nimble hydrophilic wire guide' came out of its silicone packaging.The product was replaced before the procedure began.The device was returned 08jan2026 and the preliminary dfa found the wire guide was separated.The outer coating was completely broken, and the inner coil was exposed.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 of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One roadrunner nimble hydrophilic wire guide was returned in an open package with label.Upon inspection the wire guide jacket was separated.The inner coil was exposed and the wire has become unraveled.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 non-conformances relevant to the failure mode.A complaint history search identified no other events reported for the related failure mode.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.The ifu supplied with the device tocwg_rev1 was reviewed and includes the following states: - 'how supplied:.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, cook has concluded a specific cause for the complaint cannot be established, it is not possible to rule out damage caused during shipping.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.
|