|
It was reported, during a lower leg intervention procedure, the flexor raabe guiding sheath's hub separated.Reportedly, when removing the sheath to exchange for a different size, the physician was pulling back on the sheath and the hub separated.It is unknown whether resistance was noted during insertion or removal.It is unknown whether the patient's anatomy was calcified, scarred, or tortuous.Per the area representative, all known information has been provided.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.
|
|
H6 methods continued: code 4119, insufficient information available.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 as well as dimensional verification of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one flexor raabe guiding sheath that was separated at the hub with the flare intact was returned to cook for investigation.No shaft separation was noted.The flare was deformed by a dip.The length of the sheath tubing measured from the flare was 55.5cm.The flare did not pass the flare gauge test.As the device was reported used and the hub was deformed due to the reported failure, it was not expected that the hub of the device would remain within specification.No further damage was noted to 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 were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, specifications, drawing, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, an ifu is provided with this device, which warns "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.¿ the ifu goes on to state "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, due to a lack of information provided, 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.
|