| Model Number |
45-880020 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Migration (4003); Premature Separation (4045)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
04/08/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A search for non-conformances associated with this part/lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device has been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.The investigation is ongoing.Upon completion of the investigation, a supplemental mdr will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported: embo bleed case of vessel off celiac artery, 5fr right femoral artery access followed by catheter, and then followed by 0.021 microcatheter to target area.Various coils deployed before reported coil was inserted.Coil was inserted into microcatheter without incident.Coil placement was not satisfactory for physician and retrieval of the coil was attempted.It was discovered that the coil had detached from the delivery system.The coil traveled to a non-target area.A small snare was inserted to remove the hydropack coil that traveled to an unintended target, successful removal of hydropack via snare.Patient stable post procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The investigation of the returned coil system found the implant coil separated from the pusher, stretched and broken at the proximal section, and was returned entangled on a snare, which is consistent with the condition of the implant described in the reported event.However, the attachment monofilament was not present in the implant; furthermore, the portion of the implant proximal to the break site and the pusher were not returned for evaluation.Without the return and evaluation of the pusher and monofilament, the investigation is unable to determine the mode of separation (i.E., unintentional vs normal detachment using a detachment controller).The investigation could not verify the mode of implant separation due to the absence of the pusher and monofilament.Furthermore, no procedure imaging/videos were provided for review; therefore, the investigation could not determine if the implant migrated to a non-target area as described in the reported event.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the stretched and broken implant, but the damage is consistent with the device experiencing forces exceeding the implant's yield and tensile strength during removal with the snare.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|