|
As reported during an unspecified ureteral procedure involving a (b)(6) year old female patient, the basket portion of a ncircle tipless stone extractor was found to be broken.As the physician was using the complaint device, he found that the device was not working to retrieve the stone.After removing the extractor device, it was observed that the basket was broken.A similar device was used to successfully complete the procedure.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 complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, and specifications of the device, as well as a visual inspection and functional test were conducted during the investigation.The complainant returned one ncircle tipless stone extractor.Inspection of the device found to have had 1 of the 4 basket wires pulled free from the basket cannula that secures the proximal end of the basket wires.Functional testing noted the handle actuated the basket formation to the open and close positions.Additionally, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record (dhr) found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.Based on the information provided, the examination of returned product and the results of the investigation, a definitive cause could not be established.Appropriate measures have been taken to address this failure mode.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.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.
|