|
It was reported, an (b)(6) female patient underwent an unspecified peripheral vascular procedure of the femoral artery in which the flexor ansel guiding sheath was used.The physician inserted the sheath in the groin over another manufacturer's guidewire for an up and over approach to treat the contralateral side.It was noted that it was a tight area in the groin and the vessel was calcified.While re-adjusting the device, the flexor material broke at the hub and separated.It was not a total separation.The device was immediately removed from the patient.Another sheath was placed and there were no further issues or complications.There was no harm to the patient and no additional procedures required due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation/evaluation: a review of the dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), manufactures instructions, quality control, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one used kcfw-7.0-18/38-45-rb-anl0-hc was returned.The proximal fittings were separated and the.038 dilator was inserted through the proximal fittings and not into the proximal end of the sheath.There was extensive biomatter throughout the device.The flare was slightly our of round but otherwise undamaged and intact.There was no visible surface damage to the sheath.The flare was gauged and passed through the large lumen and not the small.The connect cap inner diameter measured within specification.Additionally, 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 showed no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should also be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, a review of the manufactures instructions, quality control procedures, and overall design history file was conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, and ifu is provided with the device, which states ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿ it goes on to say ¿ reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ based on the information provided, the examination of the returned product, and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be traced to the device, but instead lies with patient anatomy as calcification was noted as well as ¿tight area¿ in the groin.We will continue our monitoring of similar complaints and have notified the appropriate personnel of this event.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.
|