| Model Number |
M0068403940 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
| Date of Event |
08/08/2018
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).The device has been received for analysis; however the evaluation has not been completed.Therefore, the cause of the reported malfunction has not been determined.Upon completion of the failure analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation on (b)(6) 2018 that a flexiva 1000 laser fiber was used during a lithotripsy procedure in the bladder performed on (b)(6) 2018.Reportedly, the laser unit used was a lumenis 100 watt console.According to the complainant, during the procedure, the physician noted that the fiber tip detached after two minutes of use.Reportedly, no fiber fragments fell inside the patient.The procedure was completed with a non-bsc laser fiber.There were no serious injury nor adverse patient effects reported as a result of this event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation on (b)(6) 2018 that a flexiva 1000 laser fiber was used during a lithotripsy procedure in the bladder performed on (b)(6) 2018.Reportedly, the laser unit used was a lumenis 100 watt console.According to the complainant, during the procedure, the physician noted that the fiber tip detached after two minutes of use.Reportedly, no fiber fragments fell inside the patient.The procedure was completed with a non-bsc laser fiber.There were no serious injury nor adverse patient effects reported as a result of this event.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Visual examination revealed that there was approximately 0.5 mm of exposed glass fiber tip remaining.Additional examination under magnification revealed that the pattern on the tip face was consistent with a fracture indicating that the tip or portion of the tip broke off.The condition of the returned device confirmed the event.Therefore, a review and analysis of all available information indicated that the root cause is adverse event related to procedure.A complaint with a cause of adverse event related to procedure indicates that the adverse event occurred during the procedure and the device had no influence on event.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed and no deviations were found.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|