| Model Number |
G61350 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Accessory Incompatible (1004); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Perforation (2001)
|
| Date of Event |
02/03/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
During an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ercp) procedure, the physician used a cook suretome sw sphincterotome.It was reported that there was significant resistance when advancing the guide wire through the sphincterotome.This reduced ability to control the wire may have contributed to a small perforation of an intrahepatic duct.As a result, a plastic stent was placed to facilitate drainage and promote healing.Further information was received stating that the physician was using a suretome with an acrobat 2 angled 035 wire guide.They flushed the racetrack of the wire guide and the suretome lumen and loaded the wire, and some resistance with noted.They tipped the wire guide tip in water to assist.They were able to get the wire guide loaded.They accessed the duct.The user noted the wire guide felt "slippery" but they were able to maintain access.They stated that when they advanced the tome into the duct the wire traveled with it.They injected some contrast and there was a slight blushing indicative of a small intra hepatic duct perforation.They then switched wire guides to an angled 035 terumo wire guide.The physician noted resistance after the wire switch.They made multiple sweeps and placed a 10/5 plastic stent for drainage and to allow the perforation to heal.The physician stated he was not sure if it was a tome or a use issue that caused the difficulty or perforation.Patient did not require any additional procedures.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.Per initial reporter the patient will require a second ercp to retrieve the plastic stent that was placed.There was an intrahepatic ductal perforation noted on fluoro [fluoroscopy] where the wire terminated due to this occurrence.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation evaluation: a product evaluation was not performed in response to this report because the product said to be involved was not provided to cook for evaluation.The report could not be confirmed.The device history record for the lot number said to be involved was reviewed.A discrepancy or anomaly was not observed with the product that was released for distribution.Investigation conclusion: we could not conduct a complete investigation because the product said to be involved was not returned for evaluation.A definitive cause for the reported observation could not be determined.Prior to distribution, all suretome sw sphincterotomes are subjected to a visual inspection and functional testing to ensure device integrity.A review of the device history record confirmed that the lot said to be involved met all manufacturing requirements prior to shipment.Corrective action: based on the quality engineering risk assessment no corrective action is warranted at this time.A review of the complaint history was conducted.There have been no other similar occurrences reported during the time period reviewed.Therefore, this report represents an isolated occurrence.This product line is newly introduced and is currently undergoing a limited launch evaluation where feedback is being collected from users.The nature of the data collection and limited use is contributing to an increased rate of occurrence; therefore, no corrective action is warranted at this time.Quality assurance will continue to monitor for complaint trends.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|