|
As reported, during an endovascular treatment procedure, the tip of a flexor ansel guiding sheath frayed.Access was obtained in the right femoral artery.As the user attempted to insert the sheath, the tip of the device became caught in the puncture site and frayed.No calcification was noted at the puncture sire.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Event summary: as reported, during an endovascular treatment procedure, the tip of a flexor ansel guiding sheath frayed.Access was obtained in the right femoral artery.As the user attempted to insert the sheath, the tip of the device became caught in the puncture site and frayed.No calcification was noted at the puncture sire.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.Investigation - evaluation.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), and quality control procedures of the device were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, a document-based investigation evaluation was conducted.A review of the device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Reviews of quality control procedures and drawings were also conducted, and no gaps were discovered.The available information provides objective evidence to support that the device was manufactured to specification.The device is packaged with instructions for use, which warn, "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 also states, ¿upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ based on the information provided, investigation has concluded that a cause for the device failure could not be established.Possible reasons for the failure include the patient's anatomy, the nature of the procedure, and/or user handling.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 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.
|