| Catalog Number |
4433742 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Crack (1135)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Swelling (2091)
|
| Date of Event |
06/27/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Batch history review: the manufacturing file was reviewed.It is compliant with our specifications and no abnormality was detected.No other similar complaint was reported on this batch of access ports.Investigation: despite requests, nor the involved device nor the x-rays pictures were returned for analysis.No thorough investigation can be performed at this time.Conclusion: no conclusion can be drawn.The complaint handling database does not show any increasing trend for this type of access port.No corrective action is envisaged.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2014, implantation of an access port via right subclavian approach.On (b)(6) 2016, during the checking before the chemotherapy injection, it was detected pain at the right shoulder and oedema at the upper part of the access port.On (b)(6) 2016, the patient was taken to operating theater for access port removal because of dysfunction suspiciaon.The removed catheter displays a crack on its thrid proximal part, at about 5 mm from the connection.No defect is apparent on the rest of the catheter.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation results: we received for investigation one celsite babyport access port from batch (b)(4).The 12.7 cm long catheter is still connected the access port housing with the connection ring.There are a lot of blood residues around the catheter.The catheter is cracked at 2.6 cm of the port housing.As the catheter is slacked around the crack, this means that the crack is due to catheter burst at this level.This means that a high pressure was applied in the system.Indeed it is worth noting that, according to our specifications, this type of catheter is designed to resist to a minimum pressure of 10 bars.This high pressure can be applied in an access port only if the device is obstructed.Conclusion: the evaluation of the explanted device did not allowed us to detect any manufacturing defect on the device.The catheter burst observed probably results from the fact that excessive pressure has been applied during the injection while the catheter was obstructed by an external element (drug crystallisation, thrombus, fibrin sleeve,.).The ifu specify to always verify that the port is functional by aspirating blood then injecting nacl before attempting to start an infusion and give some advices to avoid occlusion of the system and to avoid generating excessive pressures in case of occlusion of the system.It is an isolated case.No manufacturing defect has been detected on the returned sample, consequently no corrective action is envisaged.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|