|
Catalog Number PXSLIMLAN115T45 |
Device Problem
Collapse (1099)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 04/19/2019 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The device has been returned and the investigation results are pending.A follow up mdr will be submitted upon completion of the device investigation.This report is associated with mfr report numbers: 3005168196-2019-00991, 3005168196-2019-00992.
|
|
Event Description
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the internal iliac artery (iia) using a penumbra coils 400s (pc400) and a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).During the procedure, the physician experienced resistance and was unable to advance two pc400s (lot #''s f80233 and f83390) past the distal tip of a lantern and, therefore, the pc400s were removed and saved for later use.The physician removed the lantern and found the distal tip to be ovalized.The physician then attempted to advance the two pc400 (lot #¿s f80233 and f83390) again with a new lantern; however, the physician was unable to advance the first pc400 (lot # f80233) in the microcatheter and the second pc400 (lot # f83390) was unable to advance within its introducer sheath and, therefore both pc400s were removed.It was reported that the proximal side of the second pc400 (lot # f83390) was found to be broken.The procedure was completed using new pc400s with the second lantern and guide catheter.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Please note that the following sections were incorrectly reported on the initial mfr report and are being corrected on this follow-up #01 mfr report:(b)(4).1.Section b.Box 5.Describe event or problem results: the returned lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern) was ovalized at approximately 114.0 cm from the hub.Conclusions: evaluation of the first returned pc400 revealed a pusher assembly with a detached embolization coil.The proximal pet lock was intact, indicating that no attempt was made to detach the coil, and the pull wire was within the distal detachment tip (ddt).The detached embolization coil was not returned for evaluation; therefore, the root cause of the reported complaint could not be determined.Further investigation revealed a kink on the pusher assembly.Based on the reported complaint, the kink and embolization coil detachment were likely incidental to the reported complaint and may have occurred post-procedure or during packaging for return to penumbra.Evaluation of the second returned pc400 revealed offset coil winds along its embolization coil.If the pc400 is forcefully advanced against resistance, damage such as offset coil winds may occur.These offset coil winds likely contributed to the difficulty advancing the pc400 within its introducer sheath.Further investigation revealed a kink at the proximal end of the pusher assembly.This damage was likely incidental to the reported complaint and may have occurred during packaging for return to penumbra.Evaluation of the returned lantern confirmed a distal ovalization.If the lantern is forcefully gripped or pinched during the procedure, damage such as an ovalization may occur.During functional testing, a demonstration pc400 was advanced into the returned lantern and could not be advanced past the ovalization on the lantern.The ovalization on the lantern likely contributed to the inability to advance the returned pc400s.Penumbra coils and catheters are 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.This report is associated with mfr report numbers: (b)(4).(b)(4).H3 other text : placeholder.
|
|
Event Description
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the internal iliac artery (iia) using a penumbra coils 400s (pc400) and a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern).During the procedure, the physician experienced resistance and was unable to advance two pc400s (lot #''s f80233 and f83390) past the distal tip of a lantern and, therefore, the pc400s were removed and saved for later use.The physician removed the lantern and found the distal tip to be ovalized.The physician then attempted to advance the two pc400 (lot #¿s f80233 and f83390) again with a new lantern; however, the physician was unable to advance the first pc400 (lot # f80233) in the microcatheter and the second pc400 (lot # f83390) was unable to advance within its introducer sheath and, therefore both pc400s were removed.It was reported that the proximal side of the second pc400 (lot # f83390) was found to be broken.The procedure was completed using new pc400s with the second lantern and guide catheter.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|