|
It was reported, the cxi support catheter experienced difficult advancement during an endoscopic third ventriculostomy procedure.The device was inserted from the left groin and advanced to the calcified lesion.While the wire guide could pass through "90% stenosed site", the cxi support catheter was unable to advance further.Once resistance was felt, the physician removed the device to exam it, confirming the tip of the device was damaged, "curled up".At this time, the procedure was discontinued.A bypass operation was planned for a later date due to this cancelled procedure.However, the date of the new operation is not known as of (b)(6) 2018.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, device history record, documentation, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufactures instructions, quality control, and specifications of the device was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were three other nonconformances associated with this lot number.All complaints were for the device being unable to pass through the lesion.While the failure mode is similar, all three events reported patient anatomy as the reason for being unable to pass through the lesion.Additionally, an ifu is provided with the device, which states ¿the catheter should not be advanced into an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.¿ it goes on to say ¿the catheter should not be advanced into a vessel having a reference vessel diameter smaller than the catheter outer diameter.¿ based on the information provided, no product returned and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be determined.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|