| Catalog Number |
CDF10015230 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Positioning Problem (3009)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
| Date of Event |
10/30/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Information regarding patient weight, height, medical history, race, and ethnicity was not reported.Procode: krd/hcg.Initial reporter: the customer contact information, including name, occupation, phone, fax, and e-mail address, was not reported.Manufacturing site name: (b)(4).The device is available to be returned for evaluation and testing.However, it has not been received to date.If the device returns, a device investigation will be performed.Missing information from this report is identified as blank; this information was not provided in the reported event or available at the time of report submission.The company is seeking this information through the event investigation.A supplemental report will be submitted if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported by a healthcare professional, during a coil embolization, a 1.5mmx2cm deltapaq cere coil (cdf10015230, s11022) was being used as a second coil on the case.The physician didn't like the shape of the coil deployment and decided to pull it out.During re-sheathing the coil, the introducer failed to be re-zipped.The physician used a same like product.The procedure was successfully finished.There was no patient injury reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).A supplemental report will be submitted if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.Complaint conclusion: as reported by a healthcare professional, during a coil embolization, a 1.5mmx2cm deltapaq cere coil (cdf10015230, s11022) was being used as a second coil on the case.The physician didn't like the shape of the coil deployment and decided to pull it out.During re-sheathing the coil, the introducer failed to be re-zipped.The physician used a same like product.The procedure was successfully finished.There was no patient injury reported.One non-sterile unit deltapaq cere 1.5mmx2cm was received inside of a pouch.The hub was inspected, and no damages was noted on it.The dpu was inspected and it was found several kinked.The introducer was inspected and it was found unzipped and kinked.The re-sheathing tool was inspected, and it was found in good conditions.The v-notch was inspected under microscope and no damages were noted on it.The distal outer sheath appears elongated and had not been softened indicating that the resistance heating coil had not been heated and the detachment process was not initiated.The embolic coil was not returned for evaluation.The functional analysis could not be performed due to the condition of the received device (dpu-several kinked, introducer- kinked).A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device s11022 number, and no non-conformances related to the reported complaint condition were identified.The complaint reported by the customer ¿coil introducer- zipping difficulty-unzipping¿ was confirmed.Even though the functional analysis could not be performed, the introducer was not able to be zipped due the conditions of the device.Due to this the event was able to be confirmed.However, the condition noted in the dpu (several kinked) may have contributed to the complaint as reported but this cannot be determined conclusively.This condition could be caused by excessive use of force in the device.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device s11022 number, and no non-conformances related to the reported complaint condition were identified.The complaint reported by the customer ¿coil - positioning difficulty-poor conformability¿ could not be evaluated because it is specific to the patient and procedure at the time of occurrence and cannot be replicated in the lab.The elongated condition noted on the distal outer sheath appears to have been caused by excessive force and handling being applied to the device however none of those can be conclusively determined.The complaint reported by the customer ¿coil - positioning difficulty-poor conformability¿ could not be evaluated because it is specific to the patient and procedure at the time of occurrence and cannot be replicated in the lab.The elongated condition noted on the distal outer sheath appears to have been caused by excessive force and handling being applied to the device however none of those can be conclusively determined.The instructions for use (ifu) instructs on proper positioning of the microcoil system.The ifu also warns: ¿if repositioning of the microcoil is necessary, carefully observe the motion of the microcoil in respect to the dpu wire while retracting the microcoil under fluoroscopy.If the microcoil movement is not one-to-one with the dpu wire, or if repositioning is difficult, the microcoil may have become stretched and could possibly break.Gently remove and discard the microcoil system¿.Based on the limited information available, the exact cause of the events could not be determined.However, it is possible that clinical and procedural factors, including device manipulation / interaction, aneurysm size and vessel characteristics, device selection, and the concomitant microcatheter, may have contributed to the reported issue.Multiple attempts to obtain additional information were unsuccessful.If information is provided at a later date, the file will be reopened and processed accordingly.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended to identify statistical signals for consideration of further correction action.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|