|
It was reported, during intervention of the (b)(6) male's superior femoral artery (sfa), the flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled.Left femoral access was gained in an up-and-over fashion to the right sfa.Resistance was felt during insertion of the complaint sheath.Other products utilized through the complaint device were a 0.035 inch j wire, another manufacturer's balloon and a self-expanding stent.The complaint device had been in place approximately two hours when, upon removal, resistance was felt and the device unraveled in the patient's anatomy.The physician was able to retrieve it without surgical intervention.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.
|
|
A review of the manufacturing instructions, specifications, drawing, quality control, complaint history, device history, documentation, instructions for use, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned device confirmed that the complaint device was separated into two sections, with elongation found at the separation.The proximal section measures 34.3 cm and the distal section measures 45 cm.The device was slightly flattened 14cm from the distal tip.The dilator was returned inside the sheath.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 be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, a review of the manufactures instructions and quality control procedures was conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, this device is provided with instructions for use; which suggests inserting the dilator prior to removal of the device.The user in this event did insert the dilator prior to withdrawal of the device from the patient.Based on the information provided, the examination of the returned product, and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be established.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 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|