| Catalog Number |
H965457491 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
08/29/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device from the reported event was returned to (b)(4).It has been forwarded to the manufacturer, intromed, for evaluation along with a supplier corrective action request (scar).Upon completion of the investigation, a supplemental medwatch will be submitted.((b)(4)).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported a micro puncture sheath broke off in an occluded graft in the patient.The physician left it in place, as it was not considered to be at risk of migration.A used sample has been returned to (b)(4) for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A review of the device history records (dhr) was performed for the indicated packaging and component lots for any deviations related to the reported defect of the complaint.The review confirms that the lots met all material, assembly and performance specifications.The (b)(6) 2017 angiodynamics complaint report was reviewed for the ministicks product family and the failure mode, "sheath fractured/migrated." no adverse trend was identified.Returned for evaluation was one sheath hub with approximately ½ inch of tubing attached.It was forwarded to angiodynamics' supplier, intromed, along with a supplier corrective action request (scar).Intromed's review of the sample under magnification confirmed that the sheath tubing was not snapped or fractured at the hub junction as described in the complaint description, but rather tubing was fractured/tore at the location approximately 1.5 to 2.0 centimeters below the molded hub joint (tubing tensile failure).Additional magnified inspection of the failure location found that the tear appeared to have propagated from a nick or slice in the tubing {consistent with a cut that would be formed with a scalpel} as indicated by the clean, straight cut edges traveling at an angle distally through at least one half of the sheath tube.Review of a similarly reported complaint event showed that the most likely root cause of the damage was a cut or slice from a sharp cutting instrument such as scalpel followed by tensile load significant enough to cause separation in the sheath tubing segment.Intromed also reviewed their dhr records for the noted lots and found no discrepancies related to this defect during manufacturing.(b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|