|
Results: the pet lock was intact on the proximal end of the pusher assembly.The embolization coil was intact with its pusher assembly.Prior to functionally testing the ruby coil, the pusher assembly was kinked by the penumbra investigator while loading a demonstration introducer sheath on the proximal end of the pusher assembly.After loading the introducer sheath on the pusher assembly, the ruby coil was advanced through a demonstration microcatheter and out of the distal tip without an issue.Conclusions: evaluation of the returned ruby coil revealed that the ruby coil was functional.During functional testing, a demonstration introducer sheath was loaded onto the ruby coil pusher assembly.Then the ruby coil was advanced through a demonstration microcatheter and out of the distal tip without an issue.The lantern identified in the complaint and the returned ruby coil introducer sheath were not returned to penumbra for evaluation.Therefore, the root cause of the resistance mentioned in the complaint could not be determined.Penumbra coils are visually inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the ovarian vein using ruby coils.During the procedure, the physician successfully placed a ruby coil in the target vessel using a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).The physician then experienced resistance and was unable to advance another ruby coil out of its introducer sheath and into the lantern and, therefore, the ruby coil was removed.The procedure was then completed using a new ruby coil with the same lantern.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|