|
The product was not returned for evaluation.Without the return of the device, the root cause of the problem cannot be determined.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: 3005168196-2019-01048.3005168196-2019-01049.
|
|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the inferior mesenteric artery (ima) and the internal iliac artery (iia) using ruby coils and pod5s.It should be noted that the patient's anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the first ruby coil was advanced into the ima using a lantern delivery microcatheter (lantern), but would not take shape in the vessel.The ruby coil was therefore removed and not used in the procedure.The physician attempted to advance a pod5; however, the pod5 was unable to advance out of the rotating hemostasis valve (rhv)and into the lantern and was therefore removed.Another pod5 was then implanted successfully in the ima using the same lantern.The physician advanced another ruby coil into the iia and made several attempts to reposition it within the vessel.While retracting the ruby coil into the lantern during an attempt to reposition, the ruby coil unintentionally detached and broke into two pieces.It was noted that one piece of the ruby coil broke off in the patient's vessel and another piece broke off inside the lantern.The lantern and piece of the ruby coil were removed together from the patient and a snare was used to retrieve the remaining piece of ruby coil from the patient's vessel.The procedure was then terminated and the patient was discharged.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.It was reported that the patient returned for another procedure on (b)(6) 2019.During this procedure, the ima and iia embolization was completed using another ruby coil and two pod packing coils (pod pcs).There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|