|
As originally reported, prior to patient contact, the inner dilator of a micropuncture transitionless access set would not screw onto the outer sheath.The procedure was completed successfully with another device.This complaint was not reportable.Upon investigation of the complaint device, the distal tip of the outer catheter was noted to be split.Per the original reporter, the device "never made it to the patient"; however biomatter was present on the returned device.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation reviews of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control procedures, specifications, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one used coaxial catheter included in micropuncture transitionless access set was returned for investigation.The tip of the outer catheter was split.The device was bowed approximately 1.5cm from the hub.Biomatter was present on the hub of the outer catheter as well as on the shaft of the inner catheter.No other damage was noted on the device.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 was one other complaint associated with this lot number; however, the reported failure was unrelated to this event¿s failure.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawings, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that a root cause for this event 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.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.
|