|
As reported, during an unspecified procedure for peripheral arterial occlusive disease involving a patient of unknown age and gender, the side arm of a flexor ansel guiding sheath was observed to have disconnected from the sheath.The dilator was inserted at the time of the separation.The device was dropped to the floor as a result of the separation, and a new device was used to 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.
|
|
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, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control procedures, specifications, and dimensional verification, as well as a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one used ksaw-6.0-18/38-55-rb-anl2-hc sheath was returned to cook for investigation.The proximal hub of the device was separated from the sheath material.The returned cap was not torqued flush with the adapter.The tuohy-borst sidearm adapter was not returned with the complaint device.There was biomatter present on the returned device; however, no other damage was noted on the sheath material.The flare appeared to have been pinch on both sides, and consequently, measured and found to be outside of specification, failing the gauge test.The device otherwise measured within specification.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 were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawings, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, an ifu is provided with the device, which states ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal." it goes on to say "reinsertion of the dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal or flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal." 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.
|