|
As reported, upon opening the device and prior to contact with a (b)(6) year-old male patient with a history of lower extremity arterial occlusion, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath was "broken" at the proximal end of the device.Photos provided by the initial reporter show separation of sheath material.The intended procedure was stent placement within the iliac artery.Another device was used to complete the procedure.The complaint device did not make contact with the patient.There has been no report that the patient experienced any adverse effects resulting from this event.
|
|
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), manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control procedures, specifications, and a visual inspection of the returned device as well as an inspection of an unused product were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath and a dilator were returned to cook for investigation.The dilator was returned without damage.A small amount of bio-matter was noted on the check-flo cap and the sheath end hole.A separation was noted in the sheath material 2mm from the check-flo but was still connected by the inner coiling.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.However, while reviewing the subassembly lot, there were leak tests nonconformances noted.While these were potentially related to the reported failure, it should be noted that the effected units were scrapped prior to final assembly.It should also be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawing, specifications, 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 failure could not be determined.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.
|