|
As reported, during leg angioplasty involving a patient of unknown age and gender, a flexor balkin guiding sheath separated.Access was gained contralaterally in the common femoral artery.Upon removal of the sheath, reportedly during initial placement, it separated in the patient.The patient's anatomy was reported to be scarred from previous surgery.An unknown manufacturer's wire was still in the patient and the physician was able to inflate an unknown balloon to remove the sheath from the patient.The patient is reportedly "doing good".There was no harm to the patient and no additional procedures required due to this occurrence.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, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), qc, trends, and specifications, as well as a dimensional verification and visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned device showed biomatter throughout the device.The sheath tubing was separated into four sections on inspection.Another manufacturer¿s balloon catheter was found in the most distal piece of tubing.Exposed coil was observed between the three distalmost separated segments.Exposed coil was also noted to have exited the distal tip of the sheath around the catheter.The dilator was not returned.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, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawings, trends, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Instructions for use, which accompany the device, state that the dilator should be reinserted prior to removal.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that failure to reinsert the dilator prior to removal, as well as the patient¿s anatomy, were possible contributing factors to the stated event.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.
|