|
It was reported that during a cross over access for atherectomy procedure using a flexor balkin guiding sheath, when an attempt was made to retrieve the introducer, the valve separated from the sheath.When this was noticed, a clamp was used to hold the sheath at the distal end preventing the introducer from slipping into the puncture hole.Everything was retrieved together.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, dimensional verification, device history record, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.A flexor balkin guiding sheath was returned for investigation with the proximal fitting (check-flo) separated from the shaft of the sheath.Multiple hemostat/clamp marks were observed on the sheath tubing just distal to the flare.The flare was distorted (oval-shaped), which could be attributed to the use of a hemostat/clamp.The flare passed through the large hole and did not pass through the small hole; therefore, the flare passed the flare gauge test.The inner diameter (id) of the connector cap was measured using pin gauges.The connector cap was found to easily accept the 0.152" pin gauge, but not the 0.153" gauge.Therefore, the connector cap id was within specification.A document-based investigation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the finished product was not made to specifications.Review of the device history record of the finished product shows no nonconforming events that would contribute to this failure mode.There were no other reported complaints for this lot number.The flexor sheath was used for treatment of peripheral arterial vascular disease, and the separation of the proximal fitting was noted to occur during removal of the device.It was determined that the sheath could have been forced through restrictive anatomy, thus causing separation upon removal.Per the health risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.
|